Amendment to stop the President from abusing pardon powers

[Bandit3 the Worker]

In 1974, then-Sen. Walter Mondale introduced a constitutional amendment that said Congress could override a presidential pardon with a two-thirds supermajority. Later - I think it was when Bill Clinton pardoned Mark Rich - Arlen Specter introduced the same amendment.

With Trump abusing his pardon powers, will this amendment make a comeback?

I don't trust Congress, but presidential abuse of pardon powers is out of control, and it has to stop somehow. Both Bushes abused their pardon powers too. The elder Bush pardoned Iran-Contra traitors, and the younger Bush pardoned political cronies.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Any use of the pardon power should be backed up by a congressional committee.

[MarkD]

In 1974, then-Sen. Walter Mondale introduced a constitutional amendment that said Congress could override a presidential pardon with a two-thirds supermajority. Later - I think it was when Bill Clinton pardoned Mark Rich - Arlen Specter introduced the same amendment.

With Trump abusing his pardon powers, will this amendment make a comeback?

I don't trust Congress, but presidential abuse of pardon powers is out of control, and it has to stop somehow. Both Bushes abused their pardon powers too. The elder Bush pardoned Iran-Contra traitors, and the younger Bush pardoned political cronies.

I would support the adoption of this kind of a constitutional amendment. But I hope that you can overcome your mistrust of Congress enough to try hard to persuade it to propose it. Maybe Congress is more ripe for considering this now -- because of Arpaio -- than at any time before. If Congress still does not propose it, keep in mind that the only other institution that can propose it is a convention of states. Here's a thread I started about that topic.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=264160.0

EDIT: Come to think of it, as much as I detest the way that the Supreme Court all-too frequently interferes with legislative powers when it should not be doing so, I'd rather have a pardon-limiting amendment written to say that pardons can be overturned by the SCOTUS -- not lower federal courts -- with an instruction to the Court to assess all of the reasons for granting a pardon, and do not allow a pardon to be maintained if it is primarily based on a political loyalty. Waiting for Congress to get a two-thirds majority to agree to overturn a pardon would be too time-consuming. There are so many perils that would come with expecting the legislative branch to make a decision that is more suitable to the judicial branch.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The pardon power exists in the first place as a check on the judiciary. If there be oversight of Presidential pardons, it needs to be by Congress.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

I wonder how Congress would have voted on the Lopez-Rivera and Manning cases. Probably not favorably.

[Stranger in a strange land]

I wonder how Congress would have voted on the Lopez-Rivera and Manning cases. Probably not favorably.

I'm not familiar with the former, but I doubt the latter would have gotten two-thirds. Also, it was a commutation rather than a pardon, which I realize is a minor point, but it would likely have mattered had it come up for a vote.

[politicallefty]

Donald Trump is doing a great job at exposing the weaknesses of our current system. Unfortunately, I remember hearing a similar proposal when Bush pardoned Scooter Libby. The Constitution has yet to adapt to 21st century life.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Pardoning a guy convicted of nothing but a misdemeanor isn't going to trigger a big push for this, which I oppose anyway.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

The risk of a person who deserved a pardon having it overridden outweighs the chance of an undeserved pardon.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

The risk of a person who deserved a pardon having it overridden outweighs the chance of an undeserved pardon.

This

[Tintrlvr]

I think at the point of having restrictions on the pardon power, you might as well get rid of it. There's no particularly good reason for it to exist to begin with. The only reason it's there is because monarchs had the power to pardon, and the president was supposed to be a kind of quasi-monarch figure to retain the powers 18th century political philosophers thought were more appropriate to a limited monarch than to a legislature.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Part of the reason why pardons are supposed to exist is to make the process of freeing the wrongfully convicted quicker and easier.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I think at the point of having restrictions on the pardon power, you might as well get rid of it. There's no particularly good reason for it to exist to begin with. The only reason it's there is because monarchs had the power to pardon, and the president was supposed to be a kind of quasi-monarch figure to retain the powers 18th century political philosophers thought were more appropriate to a limited monarch than to a legislature.

Unless you entirely get rid of pardons, which is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater, there will be some abuse, no matter who gives them out.