Modifying POTUS' pardon power

[Raven123]

I’m listening to a discussion about modifying presidential pardon power. As far as I know this would require a constitutional amendment. Former Rep Comstock (R) commented on discussions she has had with some who suggest Congressional review as a modification.

My reaction: Have you not been paying attention?

I talked to someone who suggested the presidents be allowed a specific and unchangeable number of pardons per term. An interesting idea. Anyone have other suggestions?

[Prairie Gates]

1. Not until after a Dem President gets to exercise the pardon as recklessly as Trump has

[crud]

2. Obstruction of justice

used to be a limit on pardon power, if the pardon is given to further a crime by the president or his admin. Bribery is another reason to invalidate a pardon. I always thought that presidents cannot pardon folks for those reasons.

Can a president now give pardons to further a crimes because of the court ruling on presidential immunity?

[Buckeyeblue]

3. I think that is just an unwritten rule, more of a legal argument

The constitution doesn't put any limits on the President's ability to pardon. This was debated during the original constitutional convention. The argument against presidential pardons was that you could have a corrupt president who could pardon people complicit with his/her crimes (imagine that). The counter argument was that the ability to impeach and remove would serve as a check on the president who abused the pardon.

[crud]

8. I remember the days when

a president wouldn't risk being impeached for bribery or obstruction of justice. Those days are long gone I guess.

[Raven123]

4. As long as Congress allows it, apparently so.

[newdeal2]

5. Congress is pretty irrelevant

Rightly or wrongly this SCOTUS will definitely give deference to presidential pardon power over any law Congress passes to limit it.

[Raven123]

6. And that is why we need to push a constitutional amendment

Gotta start sometime.

[mr715]

7. Would it require an amendment

or could statue serve to constrain the terminology used in the Constitution?

Federal pardon power is absolute - I think that is the case in most governments across the world but I don't know.

Mandating a specific number of pardons is a bad idea because you could easily imagine a scenario where a despot is overthrown and his or her successor would need to exercise a lot of pardoning or commutation.

The idea of Congressional review is interesting because it would permit an unlimited number of pardons and tie direct political consequences to unwise application of pardoning power. It would link the Congress to the choices made by the executive with regard to matters of crime and punishment that they are ordinarily relatively insulated.

There would also be an administrative solution. Pardon power is unlimited and absolute, but it must specifically list the crime, the name, the context, etc. or otherwise be invalid. Instead of Trump giving a blanket pardon to 2000 people, he'd have to process 2000 individual pardons and each pardon would apply only to one offense.

"I, President Trump, do hereby pardon X for the crime of sedition and insurrection" really brings the issue to a head, and having to do that 2000 times via official channels.

There are other pardons I object to that are not limited to one party, and I think that administrative/political poison solution might've obviated them as well.