Poll: Presidential Pardons

[Midnight Judges]

This poll was inspired by the review of the Ford Presidency. If you were in the position to start a new democracy, would you include the option of Presidential pardons?

[sith lord]

I voted no. No one, including a president, should have that much say over the law.

[Teller]

Yes.


I was only seven months old when Ford took office, but from everything I've heard and read, the pardoning of Nixon seems to have been the right decision. In a nutshell, it allowed Ford to get back to the business at hand of running the country. Was it a painful decision? Sure. Was Nixon a slimebag? I think so. Did it cost Ford politically? Absolutely.

But just imagine...A politician making a decision that hurts him politically, but he makes that decision anyway for the good of the country. Refreshing.

[sith lord]

Yes.


I was only seven months old when Ford took office, but from everything I've heard and read, the pardoning of Nixon seems to have been the right decision. In a nutshell, it allowed Ford to get back to the business at hand of running the country. Was it a painful decision? Sure. Was Nixon a slimebag? I think so. Did it cost Ford politically? Absolutely.

But just imagine...A politician making a decision that hurts him politically, but he makes that decision anyway for the good of the country. Refreshing.

But what about the criminals that recieve pardons? Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't anyone be granted a pardon?

[Larry]

I'm a big fan of allowing the government to show leniency in special circumstances.

Now, I'm not as big a fan of some of the ways pardons have been used, (especially in fiction.)

I really don't think pardons were intended for the purpose of making someone immune to law. (To pick an example I'd have problems with: Clancy's Teeth of the Tiger features a "private" organization that's been created by secret Presidential order, given unlimited access to classified information, and told to go hunting terrorists with no legal restrictions whatsoever, under the authority of a stack of blank (but pre-signed) Presidential Pardons.)

To me, pardons were created to allow the showing of mercy for people who've been convicted, not for purposes of creating people with no responsibility for their actions.

(I voted yes. They should exist.)

[Teller]

But what about the criminals that recieve pardons? Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't anyone be granted a pardon?

You're absolutely correct, and unfortunately, it does get abused from time to time. Course, so does everything else in the federal government, or so it seems sometimes.

[redskins2redskins]

I voted yes.
I do think they shouldn't be allowed to pardon just anyone thou, it should all depend on what the offense was and the circumstances behind it.

[DeanCollins]

Yes.


I was only seven months old when Ford took office, but from everything I've heard and read, the pardoning of Nixon seems to have been the right decision. In a nutshell, it allowed Ford to get back to the business at hand of running the country. Was it a painful decision? Sure. Was Nixon a slimebag? I think so. Did it cost Ford politically? Absolutely.

But just imagine...A politician making a decision that hurts him politically, but he makes that decision anyway for the good of the country. Refreshing.

what a bunch of HHogwash. If Nixon and Ford were democrats you'd be lambasting them both without end and you know it.

[mboyd784]

If it's in the Constitution, it's okay by me.

[Teller]

I'm a big fan of allowing the government to show leniency in special circumstances.

Now, I'm not as big a fan of some of the ways pardons have been used, (especially in fiction.)

I really don't think pardons were intended for the purpose of making someone immune to law. (To pick an example I'd have problems with: Clancy's Teeth of the Tiger features a "private" organization that's been created by secret Presidential order, given unlimited access to classified information, and told to go hunting terrorists with no legal restrictions whatsoever, under the authority of a stack of blank (but pre-signed) Presidential Pardons.)

To me, pardons were created to allow the showing of mercy for people who've been convicted, not for purposes of creating people with no responsibility for their actions.

(I voted yes. They should exist.)

Cue the big meteor coming to kill us all. This is, what, the fourth time we've agreed on something, Larry? :cheers:

[Teller]

what a bunch of HHogwash. If Nixon and Ford were democrats you'd be lambasting them both without end and you know it.

Probably so. :D

HHogwash. :laugh: I'm stealing that. :cheers:

[DjTj]

I voted yes.

If we trust a man to veto legislation, to command our military (and to give me random days off :)), we should trust his judgment to pardon certain criminals.

The court system is not perfect, and the pardon is a way of correcting that - governors often pardon those on death row who may have been convicted under questionable circumstances. There are also political reasons, like with Nixon, where prosecuting someone, while mandated by law, is not in the public interest.

The Executive Branch is entrusted to make certain judgment calls, and pardons are just another part of that function.

[Larry]

what a bunch of HHogwash. If Nixon and Ford were democrats you'd be lambasting them both without end and you know it.

I supported Ford pardoning Nixon. So much that I voted for him. Twice. (I wrote him in in '80).

Do you want to accuse me of being a right-wing hypocrite? :)

[Midnight Judges]

I voted no. Pardons are just begging to be abused. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Nixon basically subverted pardon law by resigning. That proved once and for all the impeachment pardon stipulatons were utterly meaningless.

I don't disagree that there have been times when a pardon was appropriate, but the drawbacks by far outweigh the benefits.

Pardons are anti-Democratic IMO.

[DjTj]

I voted no. Pardons are just begging to be abused. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Nixon basically subverted pardon law by resigning proving once and for all the impeachment pardon stipulatons were utterly meaningless.

I don't disagree that there have been times when a pardon was appropriate, but the drawbacks by far outweigh the benefits.

Pardons are anti-Democratic IMO.Well we haven't yet seen a President go crazy with pardons, so history shows that absolute power actually hasn't corrupted absolutely.

Pardons are most definitely anti-democratic, but so are vetoes, judicial review, filibusters, and many other hallmarks of our government ... I would argue that those anti-democratic elements are part of what makes our democracy function better than any other in the world.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

I'm a big fan of allowing the government to show leniency in special circumstances.

Now, I'm not as big a fan of some of the ways pardons have been used, (especially in fiction.)

I really don't think pardons were intended for the purpose of making someone immune to law. (To pick an example I'd have problems with: Clancy's Teeth of the Tiger features a "private" organization that's been created by secret Presidential order, given unlimited access to classified information, and told to go hunting terrorists with no legal restrictions whatsoever, under the authority of a stack of blank (but pre-signed) Presidential Pardons.)

To me, pardons were created to allow the showing of mercy for people who've been convicted, not for purposes of creating people with no responsibility for their actions.

(I voted yes. They should exist.)

Pretty much sums up why I voted yes as well.

[mboyd784]

Probably so. :D

HHogwash. :laugh: I'm stealing that. :cheers:

I love the tailgate.

[Midnight Judges]

Well we haven't yet seen a President go crazy with pardons, so history shows that absolute power actually hasn't corrupted absolutely.

Pardons are most definitely anti-democratic, but so are vetoes, judicial review, filibusters, and many other hallmarks of our government ... I would argue that those anti-democratic elements are part of what makes our democracy function better than any other in the world.

IMO the fact that a President can basically pardon himself has lead to more egregious interpretations of laws. Going crazy with pardons is not the only consequence.

[Teller]

IMO the fact that a President can basically pardon himself has lead to more egregious interpretations of laws.

Give us an example, MJ. I'm not sure I understand quite what you mean here.

[DeanCollins]

I supported Ford pardoning Nixon. So much that I voted for him. Twice. (I wrote him in in '80).

Do you want to accuse me of being a right-wing hypocrite? :)

so did I, that wasn't my point :silly: and no.

[Midnight Judges]

Give us an example, MJ. I'm not sure I understand quite what you mean here.

Nixon was going to be impeached. The constitution says a President can pardon anyone for anything, except himself for impeachment. Nixon resigned knowing full well he would be pardoned. He basically pardoned himself, thus undermining the intent of our constitution.

As for more egregious interpretations of laws, just read dubya's signing statements and Alberto Gonzales' defense of them.

[Larry]

I voted no. Pardons are just begging to be abused. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Nixon basically subverted pardon law by resigning. That proved once and for all the impeachment pardon stipulatons were utterly meaningless.

Um, just out of curiosity,

What "pardon law" and what "impeachment pardon stipulatons"?

[Destino]

I'm a big fan of allowing the government to show leniency in special circumstances.

Now, I'm not as big a fan of some of the ways pardons have been used, (especially in fiction.)

I really don't think pardons were intended for the purpose of making someone immune to law. (To pick an example I'd have problems with: Clancy's Teeth of the Tiger features a "private" organization that's been created by secret Presidential order, given unlimited access to classified information, and told to go hunting terrorists with no legal restrictions whatsoever, under the authority of a stack of blank (but pre-signed) Presidential Pardons.)

To me, pardons were created to allow the showing of mercy for people who've been convicted, not for purposes of creating people with no responsibility for their actions.

(I voted yes. They should exist.)

I read that book, I hope Clancy doesn't actually think that the organization he imagined in that book would be a good idea. What a nut.

[Larry]

Nixon was going to be impeached. The constitution says a President can pardon anyone for anything, except himself for impeachment. Nixon resigned knowing full well he would be pardoned. He basically pardoned himself, thus undermining the intent of our constitution.

As for more egregious interpretations of laws, just read dubya's signing statements and Alberto Gonzales' defense of them.

Uh, Ford's pardon did not affect Nixon's impeachment in any way.

Nixon's resignation rendered him immune to impeachment, because the only thing impeachment can do is remove someone from office. (Just like quitting your job renders you immune from being fired.)

[Midnight Judges]

Um, just out of curiosity,

What "pardon law" and what "impeachment pardon stipulatons"?

article 2 section 2


he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

I see what you are saying but my point is this is not how pardons were intended IMO.

[Midnight Judges]

Uh, Ford's pardon did not affect Nixon's impeachment in any way.

Nixon's resignation rendered him immune to impeachment, because the only thing impeachment can do is remove someone from office. (Just like quitting your job renders you immune from being fired.)

So I take it you are not of the opinion that Nixon's resignation was quid pro quo for the pardon.

[Larry]

So I take it you are not of the opinion that Nixon's resignation was quid pro quo for the pardon.

I've already stated my reasons why I not only don't believe it, I believe even the theory has some big logic holes.

The main ones are that:

If Nixon tells Ford "I'll make you President if you promise to Pardon me", then he's handed Ford blackmail material. I think Nixon is smart enough to know better than to hand out blackmail material to other politicians.

And, I don't think Nixon, no matter how crooked he was, would ever even have mentioned such a deal, simply because he's smart enough to know that the Senate is full of people who'd agree, and then not deliver.

-----

(It's the same problem I have with the whackjobs who claim that Reagan talked the Ayatollah into keeping the hostages until Reagan got elected. 1) I can't believe the Ayatollah wanted Reagan elected, and 2) There's nothing Reagan can give the Ayatollah except a promise. (And, a promise that the Ayatollah can't hold him to.))

[PleaseBlitz]

I voted yes.

If we trust a man to veto legislation, to command our military (and to give me random days off :)), we should trust his judgment to pardon certain criminals.

The court system is not perfect, and the pardon is a way of correcting that - governors often pardon those on death row who may have been convicted under questionable circumstances. There are also political reasons, like with Nixon, where prosecuting someone, while mandated by law, is not in the public interest.

The Executive Branch is entrusted to make certain judgment calls, and pardons are just another part of that function.


PB endorses this post.


We elect people to exercise their best judgement on our behalf.

Options are generally a good thing to have.

[Midnight Judges]

LOL I guess my trust level is sub-par.

[Blighty Skins]

Well we haven't yet seen a President go crazy with pardons, so history shows that absolute power actually hasn't corrupted absolutely.

Pardons are most definitely anti-democratic, but so are vetoes, judicial review, filibusters, and many other hallmarks of our government ... I would argue that those anti-democratic elements are part of what makes our democracy function better than any other in the world.

So what do you say about Clinton who pardoned 140 criminals (yes 140!!!) including a drug-dealing murderer? :rolleyes:

Us democracy function better than any in the world? I hope you're joking. Remember the bush ballot recount fiasco a few years ago? :doh:

[Prosperity]

I don't think a President ought to be able to pardon anyone in his second term, just the first term. Tough luck for anyone getting screwed in the second term. I don't think a pardon can be equated to a veto even though they are similar. Congress can still get 2/3. But a pardon absolutely overrides the judicial system. It should only be allowed if the President has something to lose, like his next term's election.

[Larry]

I don't think a President ought to be able to pardon anyone in his second term, just the first term. Tough luck for anyone getting screwed in the second term. I don't think a pardon can be equated to a veto even though they are similar. Congress can still get 2/3. But a pardon absolutely overrides the judicial system. It should only be allowed if the President has something to lose, like his next term's election.

Um, you're saying that the key to "reforming" our Pardon system is to make it more political?

:)

[Teller]

Um, you're saying that the key to "reforming" our Pardon system is to make it more political?

:)

Lib's either trying to become the tailgate version of Pittman4Two, or he's been high for about 3 months.

Or both. ;)

[Prosperity]

Um, you're saying that the key to "reforming" our Pardon system is to make it more political?

:)

I liked the way I put it better

[twa]

I like DJTJ's the best...MJ in Nixon's case the only thing affected was preventing criminal charges,which would have been a distraction at a time the nation had much more important matters to be addressed.
Those were definitely troubled times,and Nixon resigned in disgrace.

It would be interesting to see if a conviction in court would have been possible though... a lawyers dream :laugh:
added:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ford
After Ford left the White House in 1977, intimates said that the former President privately justified his pardon of Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of Burdick v. United States, a 1915 U.S. Supreme Court decision which stated that a pardon indicated a presumption of guilt and that acceptance of a pardon was tantamount to a confession of that guilt.[39]

[DeanCollins]

I like DJTJ's the best...MJ in Nixon's case the only thing affected was preventing criminal charges,which would have been a distraction at a time the nation had much more important matters to be addressed.
Those were definitely troubled times,and Nixon resigned in disgrace.

It would be interesting to see if a conviction in court would have been possible though... a lawyers dream :laugh:


there wasn't much more you could've done to Nixon, he was a prisoner of his own mind. I don't think he ever recovered from the humiliation. Clinton on the other hand wear's his like a badge of honor. As he should, I wish I could raise the blood pressure of that many republicans over a piece of tail :laugh:.
I still don't think that they realize how foolish they acted in thier efforts to convience the public that it was worth $7.2 million to investigate a bj.

[mboyd784]

there wasn't much more you could've done to Nixon, he was a prisoner of his own mind. I don't think he ever recovered from the humiliation. Clinton on the other hand wear's his like a badge of honor. As he should, I wish I could raise the blood pressure of that many republicans over a piece of tail :laugh:.
I still don't think that they realize how foolish they acted in thier efforts to convience the public that it was worth $7.2 million to investigate a bj.

A sloppy BJ, evidently.

And that is what 7.2 million will buy.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I voted "No." NO INDIVIDUAL in a Republic/Democracy should have the power to totally overrule the system. Essentially the "Presidential Pardon" is the ultimate power to override the entire Legal system. Imagine the breadth or horrors that a less-than-honorable person could bring about with the use of that power. Scary. Scary. Scary.

[mboyd784]

I voted "No." NO INDIVIDUAL in a Republic/Democracy should have the power to totally overrule the system. Essentially the "Presidential Pardon" is the ultimate power to override the entire Legal system. Imagine the breadth or horrors that a less-than-honorable person could bring about with the use of that power. Scary. Scary. Scary.

"Less than Honorable" = Son of a son of a *****

Here's a tip you don't need:

1) Pay all debt and convert your assets to gold/land/traditional wealth.

2) Exercise your 2nd amendment rights...fully!

3) A Refresher (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm)