Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
I don't know about this one. The President doesn't really use the power he's about to leave, and most of the time he pardons friend's relatives. I really don't see the point in this one.
*The President doesn't really use the power until he's about to leave,
I believe the president should not be given more power than he deserves, so no.
It's in the Constitution for a reason, primarily to commute severe sentences (death was a really common penalty in the 18th century). It has also been used frequently by commander in chief functions to pardon offenses by serving military units, for charges like desertion or draft dodging. Those seem like pretty good reasons to have the pardon available.
So long as it is not used illegally, such as to cover impeachment or civil liabilities, I don't have a problem with whoever gets pardoned for any reason. When it is an obvious abuse, we all will know. In the electoral system this limits the likelihood of severe abuse to generally the final days of a second term. If that's what a President wants to spend their final days accomplishing, so be it.
Governors can pardon too right?
Not usually for federal crimes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardo…
There's a lot of people on that list charged or sentenced with things like federal drug laws, evading excise taxes on alcohol, mail tampering or theft, interstate commerce, federal or social security tax claims. Military justice would fall solely under the Presidential pardon as well.
Wow. A lot of these people have been in jail for decades for little crimes, no murders or anything.
The Presidential Pardon is now the most abused power instilled into the Presidency.
I, for one, honestly believe that all Presidential Pardon's should be reviewed by the United States Supreme Court and those that do not serve the public good should be denied.
That is my not-so-humble opinion.
There was one arson I saw on that list. That's usually a big deal. In most cases these people had already served their sentences, so they weren't sitting around languishing in some prison for 30 years because they didn't pay whiskey taxes. What the pardon usually does in that case is excuse the felony charges on their record so they can get some kinds of employment, vote, buy a gun, etc.
Yea, because nowadays, if you have one blemish on your record, you are finished.
It's so minor though. The Supreme Court has so much stuff to do already.
Isn't the point of the pardon to act as a check against the judiciary and legislature? For all the bellyaching people do over the power of the courts, I should think the last thing people would want is more actual power apportioned to the courts.
From Article 2, section 2 of the US Constitution-
"he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
To me, it looks like pardons for felonies would be permitted.