The President's pardon power, a gaping hole the Constitution.

[speak easy]

"treason should be excepted for fear that the President could otherwise frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself"

'The [pardon] power vested in the President by the Constitution traces its origins to authority held by the English Crown ' The Constitution Convention heard argument about placing limits on powers of a president to grant pardons; All were voted down. It was accepted that impeachment itself was enough of a safeguard.

ArtII.S2.C1.3.2 Historical Background on Pardon Power
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C1-3-2/ALDE_00013317/

Edmund Randolph proposed reincorporating an exception for cases of treason, arguing that extending pardon authority to such cases was too great a trust, that the President may himself be guilty, and that the Traytors may be his own instruments.

George Mason likewise argued that treason should be excepted for fear that the President could otherwise frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself to stop inquiry and prevent detection, eventually establish[ing] a monarchy, and destroy[ing] the republic.

James Wilson responded to such arguments by pointing out that if the President were himself involved in treasonous conduct, he could be impeached. Randolph’s motion was defeated by an 8-2 vote, with one divided.Another proposal would have made reprieves and pardons available only after conviction. However, when James Wilson pointed out that pre-conviction pardons might be needed to secure accomplice testimony, the motion to add the language was withdrawn.

And there you have it, the J6 pardons, game set and match.

If you give the President the power of an English King, he or she might like to act like one. The founders were aware the danger, a president pardoning crimes that he or she instigated, but dismissed it out of hand, tearing a gaping hole in the Constitution.

[William769]

1. It is what it is.

The trunp cabal will use every advaantage they can in the wording of the constitution, they will even go against pats of the constitution to see what they can get away with.

It's up to us to keep them on the straight & narrow.

[unblock]

2. The constitution is only as good as the people in power anyway

Republicans figured out that 5 or more people on the Supreme Court can decide cases however the f they want. Their expositions constitution doesn't say squat about how the must decide cases.

Their explanations, if offered at all, need not make any sense or follow any logic or norm. They can make up crap and call it "interpreting the constitution" even if it's clearly not.

Hence the ridiculous decision to halt the recount in bush v gore and the decision to enslave pregnant women.

The balance of powers is supposed to protect us, but when the separate branches are all controlled by a common group of people who answer to powers outside of the constitution, it nullifies the founders' protections. A united Republican Party, in concert with a corrupt media, rendered the institutions of the constitution largely impotent.

The pardon power can be abused, certainly. Donnie pardoning his brownshirts is inexcusable, but the protection is impeachment and that ain't happening because the house is controlled by equally corrupt people.

[speak easy]

3. 'The pardon power can be abused'. The pardon power is unlimited.

There are no checks or balances. Argument at the convention that Congress should a role was dismissed 8-1.

[Submariner]

4. Well as Trump told us a few years back, the Continental Army

was taking over the airports, so the Founders must have certainly been distracted from the details leaving us that gaping hole, resulting in a flaming asshole traitor for president.

[speak easy]

5. 'gaping hole' sounds melodramatic I know,

but the insurrectionists are running right through it.

... the President could otherwise frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself

[cstanleytech]

6. A President should only be allowed to nominate ones for treason and then it goes to the Senate or House.

Then they get to decide on a vote.
The same should apply to anyone that served or worked for the current Administration in the White House.

[Buckeyeblue]

7. It's interesting that Nixon didn't pardon anyone involved in Watergate on his way out

Only 50 years ago but wildly different times. I've thought it odd that Presidents and most governors have the ability to commute sentences or grant outright pardons for crimes, any crimes really.

A President could absolutely ask someone to take out an opponent and then pardon that person. Trump asked a group of followers to commit domestic terrorism. And they did. And now they've been pardoned.

The question I have is why didn't he pardon them as he walked out of office in 2021?

[DeepWinter]

8. Just back to the 1970's

Richard Nixon 1969–1974 - 926
Gerald Ford 1974–1977 - 409 Pardoned Richard Nixon in September 1974
Jimmy Carter 1977–1981 - 566 Excludes over 200,000 pardoned for Vietnam draft evasion
Ronald Reagan 1981–1989 - 406
George H. W. Bush 1989–1993 - 77
Bill Clinton 1993–2001 - 459
George W. Bush 2001–2009 - 200
Barack Obama 2009–2017 - 1927
Donald Trump 2017–2021, 2025–present - 1740 (Includes approximately 1500 pardoned for January 6 attacks)
Joe Biden 2021–2025 - 8064 (Includes 6500 pardoned for marijuana possession )

Seems to be a growing trend. Be interesting to see where it is in another 50 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_or_granted_clemency_by_the_president_of_the_United_States