Submitted 1 day ago by snausagesinablanket@lemmy.world to [deleted]
This is territory I thought I would never have to think about but something stinks lately to say the least.
The whole point of a pardon is “we know you did the crime, but don’t think you should be punished.” It can only come about if there’s an ulterior motive, like corruption or if you agree to work with the government towards their goals, initially working on dangerous projects etc. Allowing it to be overturned later would undermine that as it wouldn’t make the danger worth it.
I’m pretty sure that to re-incarcerate someone after they were pardoned would require a new trial, which would violate the double jeopardy clause.
Unless that person has comitted more crimes they were not previously prosecuted for. Which is not entirely unlikely if they are emboldened by having avoided punishment thanks to the backing of a corrupt POTUS. I.E. multiple Jan 6’ers.
Using traditional logic and precedent: no.
In the context of the brave new world we find ourselves in, in which the Tribunal of Six have given the president effective carte blanche to do pretty much anything so long as it’s “an official act” (where an “official act” is defined, as far as I can tell, by the president saying “this is an official act”): lots of things, including
Seriously, it’s anyone’s guess at this point. The bones of the system are crumbling, and many have already been shattered, likely irreversibly. The only thing holding this shitshow up at this point are load-bearing posters.
After that Supreme Court decision, I believe the United States will not be able to recover a full democracy without a massive constitutional overhaul or a completely new constitution.
I genuinely do not believe the situation to be recoverable - rewriting the constitution in this day and age, with the insanely partisan politics and fascistic idiocy on full display, juxtaposed with a corporatist, neoliberal “opposition party” that conducts zero meaningful opposition is frankly a non-starter.
And even if it was possible: I don’t want a constitution sponsored by Comcast and Exxon Mobil and Amazon and Meta and X and Palantir and so on. Which, I’m sure, is probably in the plan somewhere.
They should have a new constitution. The US constitution is broken at an architectural level and can not be fixed. France has new constitutions every generation, there is no reason the US should be stuck with a court and country style document from 250 years ago that call black people 3/5ths of a person on it.
Every American should read this book The frozen republic : how the Constitution is paralyzing democracy
Tribunal of Six
Sounds too legitimate.
More like the Junta of Six
Nope. Otherwise Nixon would have been unpardoned by Carter.
Theoretically a constitutional amendment could be passed. That would require 3/4 of states to ratify it.
in the case of constitutional amendments, this gets even more complex. Technically states have the ability to force a constitutional convention hearing in the case of a legislative branch either not bringing to the floor or denying an amendment that has clear popularity in the states.
The issue with this is that it requires a 2/3 vote of the states in agreement, and that it also requires a system that only has the bare minimums defined legally on it. It doesn’t define what a convention is, or even how many people in the state have to agree. It’s fully left on the states to decide it on an individual basis how that system would work for them.
How it would work is
That process is more dangerous because it's less constrictive. Going through the legislative branch limits it to one amendment and is a drawn out public process. At a constitutional convention the representatives can debate and pass anything they want to with the required 3/4 vote without public notice or input. I don't trust our current political system not to add corporate written amendments to the constitution if they have the chance to do so without public review.
I don’t know, but I would be fine if the presidential pardon was abolished. Perhaps replace it with only a stay of execution.
Nah, it can be used for good. Obama pardoned a lot of non-violent drug offenders who were gonna be in jail into there 60s due to something they did in there 20s because of mandatory minimums.
I don’t have the numbers but I’m guessing it’s been used for harm more than good.
The president has no business undermining the judiciary in the first place.
Although I do find it strange that there is no check on the judiciary.
Like, it’s supposed to be checks and balances, but what stops the judges from passing an unjust law?
Judges have a lifetime appointment in the Supreme Court. The only way they can be removed is by all of Congress coming together and choosing to impeach one of them, and that takes years when Congress is actually functioning.
…but what stops the judges from passing an unjust law?..
Well, ostensibly it’s congress that passes the laws and the courts may say how they are interpreted or implemented.
If the courts are interpreting the laws against what the authors of the law intended, it is up to congress to write laws that are better and pass constitutional muster without question…
We’re at the point we are because of poorly written laws that have led to loopholes and poor implementation being taken advantage of.
They have no authority to enforce any law. And they have no legislative powers.
Rulings have been ignored multiple times because the judiciary just has no means to enforce what the executive branch refuses to enforce
technically the check for judicial was supposed to be a mix between it being a life position and the legislative branches impeachment/revocal process. The court was supposed to be an impartial non-political, but it’s been slowly slipping into a very heavily politically motivated group.
It wasn’t the question.
Yes, US Supreme court says the president can order Seal teams to do stuff (if you know what I mean 😏)
Just hope the next president has a spine
No. A pardon is a perfect legal exemption for a crime.
No
Pegajace@lemmy.world 1 day ago
No. The power of the pardon is explicitly granted to the President in the text of the Constitution, and it provides no mechanism for reversing such pardons. It’s meant to be a check against unjust laws and/or corrupt courts, and presidents who would corruptly abuse the power for their own profit are supposed to be removed from office via impeachment—but as we’ve seen, Congress won’t even remove a president who orchestrates a mob attack against themselves as part of a scheme to overthrow an election.
DomeGuy@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Go read the actual text of the US Constitution . The answer is a quirky technical “well, theoretically yes but practically no.”
constitution.congress.gov/browse/…/clause-1/
That last emphasized line means that if the US Congress were to impeach and remove a president for bribery or a criminal conspiracy, they could also negate any pardons given to POTUS’s collaborators.
Of course, since no US President has ever been removed from office by congress’s impeachment power, and it’s uncertain if a post-term impeachment and conviction would itself pass the inevitable SCOTUS appeal, this is even less likely than the US Congress awarding a no-majoroty electoral collage vote to the other major party.
Pika@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
I thought the intent behind that wasn’t to revoke previous pardons, but was to prevent a president from pardoning themselves in an impeachment trial.
JollyG@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I think you would struggle to find any serious Constitutional scholar who would agree with your interpretation. “Except in cases of impeachment” is clearly a limit on what cases a president has the power to issue a pardon, not a retroactive “unpardoning” of cases after a president has been impeached. In fact the retroactive nullification of a pardon seems to fly in the face of a basic judicial principle that hold decisions to be final.
ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 23 hours ago
It means other people impeached cannot be pardoned, and that he cannot pardon himself.
Lots of people can be impeached besides the POTUS; from the VP, down to federal judges and cabinet members. He cannot pardon any of them if they’re impeached.