Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Le Gaucher

(1,547 posts)
Thu Aug 3, 2017, 12:49 PM Aug 2017

We need to restrict the pardon powers of a president

He should not be able to Pardon

1) himself
2) Any Family or Friend
3) anyone connected to a campaign to elect him/her president ( including campaign contributors/ staff)
4) Political Apointees


This is common sense and I wonder why these restrictions werent put in place already. Any reason why we shouldnt do this?

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
We need to restrict the pardon powers of a president (Original Post) Le Gaucher Aug 2017 OP
Unfortunately... Else You Are Mad Aug 2017 #1
This isn't about trump... but a loophole in powers . We dont want anyone , Republican or Democrat to Le Gaucher Aug 2017 #3
Agreed. Else You Are Mad Aug 2017 #4
Considering the hiring of family, friend, political appointees, etc. was considered illegal, I can monmouth4 Aug 2017 #2
How is the hiring of a political appointee illegal? Igel Aug 2017 #8
It won't pass so why waste time and effort? Cicada Aug 2017 #5
nice perspective . thanks Le Gaucher Aug 2017 #6
How does one legally quantify 'friend'? Baconator Aug 2017 #7
I guess if you donated $3 to Bill Clinton's Igel Aug 2017 #9

Else You Are Mad

(3,040 posts)
1. Unfortunately...
Thu Aug 3, 2017, 12:53 PM
Aug 2017

That would take a constitutional convention to enact a new amendment. And, the GOP controls more states than the Dems and they control the Congress as well.

 

Le Gaucher

(1,547 posts)
3. This isn't about trump... but a loophole in powers . We dont want anyone , Republican or Democrat to
Thu Aug 3, 2017, 12:56 PM
Aug 2017

exploit this loophole

Talk Radio loves to rail about Clinton's questionable pardons.

So this is something that should have wide support - if we approach it correctly and not make it about Trump

Else You Are Mad

(3,040 posts)
4. Agreed.
Thu Aug 3, 2017, 12:57 PM
Aug 2017

But, getting a constitutional amendment is unlikely in this political atmosphere. We would have to have Democrats and Republicans agree to to change the constitution.

monmouth4

(9,711 posts)
2. Considering the hiring of family, friend, political appointees, etc. was considered illegal, I can
Thu Aug 3, 2017, 12:55 PM
Aug 2017

understand why these restrictions were not in place. Whoda thunk?

Igel

(35,362 posts)
8. How is the hiring of a political appointee illegal?
Thu Aug 3, 2017, 02:01 PM
Aug 2017

You mean the president can't appoint anybody to his cabinet or chief of staff or advisors. He must delegate out these executive powers?

Problem is the president is the source of all executive power, like SCOTUS is in charge of the judiciary. Congress has neither judicial nor executive powers, except what's necessary for a few tasks that aren't legislative in nature.

Same for "friend." Define it. How many do you have? 1? 50? Where's the cut-off? Now, define it.

There's a way to keep such from being appointed. They can be screened out during the advise-and-consent phase of the appointment.

Cicada

(4,533 posts)
5. It won't pass so why waste time and effort?
Thu Aug 3, 2017, 01:07 PM
Aug 2017

We need to focus on things which matter to real people. Koch brothers buying laws they want matters. Distorted voting districts matter. Trump in or out of a jail cell makes absolutely no difference in my life nor in yours.

Let's not fall into Trump's trap of focusing on things which don't matter.

Igel

(35,362 posts)
9. I guess if you donated $3 to Bill Clinton's
Thu Aug 3, 2017, 02:04 PM
Aug 2017

campaign, you'd have been excluded from any job in HRC's executive branch.

That would be one way to keep all government workers from taking sides. "You there, I heard you say something about voting for Obama. You're fired, front-desk clerk at the Phoenix Social Security office. And you, EPA technician, you gave money to Obama's campaign. Terminated."

Low-level appointees, not a problem. High-level appointees, Congress vets.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»We need to restrict the p...