There's a very easy way for Congress to stop any president from ever self-pardoning. Pass a constitutional amendment invalidating it and if they want, to, limiting the president's pardon power as it applies to everyone else as well. But they either don't really want to do that, or are just lazy. It's no different than the size of the Supreme Court question and court packing. It'd be incredibly easy to pass an amendment mandating a maximum size. Again, they either don't want to limit the president's power when it's in their interest, or they're just lazy.
I think you don't understand how difficult it is to amend our Constitution. There's zero chance of an amendment addressing a theoretical problem will be sent to the States, let alone ratified by the States, until such time as it becomes an actual problem. You captured my contempt of politicians in a nutshell. Well done.
I'm an engineer that works on NASA satellites for a living. I solve theoretical problems every day because the cost of eventual failure if it occurs is so high. Companies in fact get sued in court all the time for millions of dollars for putting out a product where their engineers did not contemplate theoretical problems that could become eventual failures. Our current politicians, per you, do not care about eventual failures of government and the costs that come with them. This is your argument: they don't care. Do not sit here and bitch about the president using the power of pardon for whatever he pleases when the Constitution says he can pardon whoever he pleases and then after he pardons whoever he pleases not seek to change the law. You are a complete f#&king failure if you do that and are an elected member of Congress. I'm willing to sit here and argue this point for hours. You've been tasked by the population of this country to be given an immense amount of power to represent them in government, and when called on it in times of crisis if you see something wrong, do jacksh**t with it.
Pelosi et al are fine with President Trump pardoning everyone he pardoned. If they were not, there's nothing stopping them from introducing a bill to change the president's ability to pardon. They have a majority to do whatever the f#&k they want. If Republicans vote against it and it doesn't get two-thirds, so be it, that means they're not allowed to bitch about Biden's pardons (or when Congress should've taken action to curtail the executive's ability to pardon in my opinion, 2001 when Clinton left office and pardoned every Democratic Party fundraiser he could find including Marc Rich).
I'm philosophically opposed to the executive power of pardon, but it exists. The Supreme Court changing the number of members to greater than 9 however is a very real danger to this country. This has been threatened twice now in our country's history. The only argument you have for why nothing has mandated the maximum size of the court is both parties want their president when they hold the office to have the option of doing it if they so desire. Someday with perpetual congressional inaction, that glass box is going to be inevitably shattered, because forever is a long time. One more tea leaf to show this country is becoming more and more monarchial in character as the legislature becomes a complete irrelevance. And both parties are to blame for that.
We can remove this contempt from present politics. They never took any legislative action on the problems pointed out by the post-9/11 Continuity of Government Commission...after attacks on Washington, D.C. "No, let's just wait for the real problem to occur of the entire line of succession being eliminated because they all live in D.C. and almost all congressmen blown up in a bombing before we worry about who is running the country and the House not having a quorum for several months."
Poll
