A National Pardons Board for the US?

[Dale]

Both Donald Trump and Joe Biden abused the pardoning power while President. Pardons issued by Governors have also been controversial. Ray Blanton, Governor of Tennessee from 1975 to 1979, issued over fifty pardons, including twenty convicted murderers. This is why many states have a Pardons Board whose members cannot be fired by the Governor. In Florida, for instance, the Governor can issue a pardon only if two members of the Cabinet agree.

The original purpose of the pardon power is to provide a way to pardon someone who is innocent.

Here is something that could work at the national level. Suppose that we had an eight member Pardons Board. Two members would be appointed by the sitting President, two by the previous President, two by the Speaker of the House and two by the President pro tempore of the Senate.

Commissions and other government bodies are usually set up with an odd number of members to reduce the chance that they will split down the middle. This should work if all members are present and no one abstains. In this case, I think an even number of members would be better. A pardon could only be issued if there is a clear majority.

The pardoning power would no longer be vested in a single person. It would be used more cautiously and with public discussion.

Creating a national Pardons Board would obviously require a Constitutional Amendment. Congress could propose a Pardons Board Amendment along with an Amendment to replace the Electoral College with a popular vote for President. Many states have a Pardons Board, and every state uses a direct popular vote for Governor. Why shouldn’t the Federal government learn from what works at the state level?

 

[ralliann]

Both Donald Trump and Joe Biden abused the pardoning power while President. Pardons issued by Governors have also been controversial. Ray Blanton, Governor of Tennessee from 1975 to 1979, issued over fifty pardons, including twenty convicted murderers. This is why many states have a Pardons Board whose members cannot be fired by the Governor. In Florida, for instance, the Governor can issue a pardon only if two members of the Cabinet agree.

The original purpose of the pardon power is to provide a way to pardon someone who is innocent.

Here is something that could work at the national level. Suppose that we had an eight member Pardons Board. Two members would be appointed by the sitting President, two by the previous President, two by the Speaker of the House and two by the President pro tempore of the Senate.

Commissions and other government bodies are usually set up with an odd number of members to reduce the chance that they will split down the middle. This should work if all members are present and no one abstains. In this case, I think an even number of members would be better. A pardon could only be issued if there is a clear majority.

The pardoning power would no longer be vested in a single person. It would be used more cautiously and with public discussion.

Creating a national Pardons Board would obviously require a Constitutional Amendment. Congress could propose a Pardons Board Amendment along with an Amendment to replace the Electoral College with a popular vote for President. Many states have a Pardons Board, and every state uses a direct popular vote for Governor. Why shouldn’t the Federal government learn from what works at the state level?

No more unelected people taking power that belongs to an elected office. If sich things are going to be messed with these people need to be elected. At least be recalled by the people at anytime.
Every state uses a popular vote for gevernor?????? why wouldn't they???
The electoral college is for FEDERAL OFFICE. Thats why we have the electoral colledge. So that one or two states cannot control the whole of the country (all the rest of the states). It gives the states more equal say as states. When it comes to an individual state you vote in more than one senator, etc. Because we live in a democratc REPUBLIC.

 

[Mike McK]

Both Donald Trump and Joe Biden abused the pardoning power while President. Pardons issued by Governors have also been controversial. Ray Blanton, Governor of Tennessee from 1975 to 1979, issued over fifty pardons, including twenty convicted murderers. This is why many states have a Pardons Board whose members cannot be fired by the Governor. In Florida, for instance, the Governor can issue a pardon only if two members of the Cabinet agree.

The original purpose of the pardon power is to provide a way to pardon someone who is innocent.

Here is something that could work at the national level. Suppose that we had an eight member Pardons Board. Two members would be appointed by the sitting President, two by the previous President, two by the Speaker of the House and two by the President pro tempore of the Senate.

Commissions and other government bodies are usually set up with an odd number of members to reduce the chance that they will split down the middle. This should work if all members are present and no one abstains. In this case, I think an even number of members would be better. A pardon could only be issued if there is a clear majority.

The pardoning power would no longer be vested in a single person. It would be used more cautiously and with public discussion.

Creating a national Pardons Board would obviously require a Constitutional Amendment. Congress could propose a Pardons Board Amendment along with an Amendment to replace the Electoral College with a popular vote for President. Many states have a Pardons Board, and every state uses a direct popular vote for Governor. Why shouldn’t the Federal government learn from what works at the state level?

Do you think you have enough votes to change the Constitution?

 

[Richard T]

This issue of the abuse of powers of the pardon is excellent. I would imagine most Presidents have done some political favors for pardons. Here is such an example with Clinton.

Clinton Pardon of Rich a Saga of Power, Money and Influence

Strategy: The fugitive financier used his former wife, Israeli VIPs and others to press his case with the White House.

www.latimes.com

Your scenario of how it would work is far better than the pure Presidential pardon. I worry about it adding to the bureaucracy and wonder if some way random, citizen "pardon jurors," could be used only after the President has nominated one to be pardoned?

 

[ralliann]

This issue of the abuse of powers of the pardon is excellent. I would imagine most Presidents have done some political favors for pardons. Here is such an example with Clinton.

Clinton Pardon of Rich a Saga of Power, Money and Influence

Strategy: The fugitive financier used his former wife, Israeli VIPs and others to press his case with the White House.

www.latimes.com

Your scenario of how it would work is far better than the pure Presidential pardon. I worry about it adding to the bureaucracy and wonder if some way random, citizen "pardon jurors," could be used only after the President has nominated one to be pardoned?

Anyone, any group can abuse power. Look at the corruption of our government agencies. We do not need anymore unelected person, persons brought into the mix.

 

[Dale]

No more unelected people taking power that belongs to an elected office. If sich things are going to be messed with these people need to be elected. At least be recalled by the people at anytime.
Every state uses a popular vote for gevernor?????? why wouldn't they???
The electoral college is for FEDERAL OFFICE. Thats why we have the electoral colledge. So that one or two states cannot control the whole of the country (all the rest of the states). It gives the states more equal say as states. When it comes to an individual state you vote in more than one senator, etc. Because we live in a democratc REPUBLIC.

Ralliann: “Every state uses a popular vote for gevernor?????? why wouldn't they???”

Georgia used to use a state version of the Electoral College. They called it the County Unit system. One of the possible reforms of the Electoral College is called the Automatic System, that is, retain the winner-take-all by state but eliminate the Electors. That way an Elector can’t change their mind. Georgia’s County Unit system worked that way.

So what happened to Georgia’s County Unit system? The Federal courts declared it ridiculous. Our Federal system has been declared unconstitutional for the states.



Ralliann: “The electoral college is for FEDERAL OFFICE. Thats why we have the electoral colledge. So that one or two states cannot control the whole of the country (all the rest of the states). It gives the states more equal say as states.”

Defenders of the Electoral College say that it protects the small states, it empowers the small states. On paper, this looks like it ought to be true but it doesn’t work out.

New York was the largest state until 1960, when it was replaced by California. Traditionally, the three largest states are California, New York and Texas, although Florida is now ahead of New York in population. Since 1928, the US has elected Presidents from New York in six elections, from California in five elections and from Texas in four elections. Our President has come from three of the four largest states 63% of the time since 1928. That is over three-fifths of the Presidential elections (and almost two-thirds).

Eleven states have supplied every President since 1924. Thirty-nine states have not supplied a President for a hundred years, if ever. So much for the Electoral College empowering the small states.

The notion that the Electoral College empowers the small states is just a rightist myth.

 

[Dale]

No more unelected people taking power that belongs to an elected office. If sich things are going to be messed with these people need to be elected. At least be recalled by the people at anytime.
Every state uses a popular vote for gevernor?????? why wouldn't they???
The electoral college is for FEDERAL OFFICE. Thats why we have the electoral colledge. So that one or two states cannot control the whole of the country (all the rest of the states). It gives the states more equal say as states. When it comes to an individual state you vote in more than one senator, etc. Because we live in a democratc REPUBLIC.

Ralliann: “No more unelected people taking power that belongs to an elected office. If sich things are going to be messed with these people need to be elected.”

Ralliann: “When it comes to an individual state you vote in more than one senator, etc.”

Your complaint about “unelected people taking power” would make sense if you were talking about judges making law.

It’s interesting that you mention “unelected people” and then mention the US Senate. When a Senator dies or resigns without completing their term, their replacement is appointed by a Governor. That’s “unelected people” making important decisions.

Most of the authority given to elected leaders is delegated to appointees. Many areas of Presidential responsibility are delegated to the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury, for example. I don’t see how a Pardons Board would be any different.

 

[johansen]

a pardons board would ensure that both parties get the wins they want in exchange for whatever backroom deals they made elsewhere.

all it does is average the corruptions between both parties on a longer term basis.

remember.. the country is large enough that no specific person matters.

we can't even get jeffry eptstins client list.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

If anything, we should be protesting the abuse of the EOs which presidents have used.

The EO was supposed to be for emergencies, but the presidents have used it for their own
agendas.

 

[ralliann]

Ralliann: “Every state uses a popular vote for gevernor?????? why wouldn't they???”

Georgia used to use a state version of the Electoral College. They called it the County Unit system. One of the possible reforms of the Electoral College is called the Automatic System, that is, retain the winner-take-all by state but eliminate the Electors. That way an Elector can’t change their mind. Georgia’s County Unit system worked that way.

So what happened to Georgia’s County Unit system? The Federal courts declared it ridiculous. Our Federal system has been declared unconstitutional for the states.



Ralliann: “The electoral college is for FEDERAL OFFICE. Thats why we have the electoral colledge. So that one or two states cannot control the whole of the country (all the rest of the states). It gives the states more equal say as states.”

Defenders of the Electoral College say that it protects the small states, it empowers the small states. On paper, this looks like it ought to be true but it doesn’t work out.

New York was the largest state until 1960, when it was replaced by California. Traditionally, the three largest states are California, New York and Texas, although Florida is now ahead of New York in population. Since 1928, the US has elected Presidents from New York in six elections, from California in five elections and from Texas in four elections. Our President has come from three of the four largest states 63% of the time since 1928. That is over three-fifths of the Presidential elections (and almost two-thirds).

Eleven states have supplied every President since 1924. Thirty-nine states have not supplied a President for a hundred years, if ever. So much for the Electoral College empowering the small states.

The notion that the Electoral College empowers the small states is just a rightist myth.

No it is not a myth. It does not matter Which states are the smallest or largest at any given time. The electoral system we have evens it out. And the notion of creating other people or groups because of corruption, real or perceived is a myth. It is not the system or the office, but the people in it. Government by the people for the people is through our installing them to that office or removing them from that office. We do not need more agencies or groups of people not answerable to the people. We install, we remove by the power we have to vote.

 

[Richard T]

Anyone, any group can abuse power. Look at the corruption of our government agencies. We do not need anymore unelected person, persons brought into the mix.

In my study of corruption, those most acquainted with government are the ones to turn. I think it is because there is a learning curve. Since the citizen pool can't choose the cases, and is serving only a week, it would be hard for much corruption. They could handle the paperwork while being proctored at a local courthouse. Unlike those in Congress they would be in no position to trade with the President. No quid pro quo is available. Your procedure is more politically acceptable I imagine though.

 

[ralliann]

In my study of corruption, those most acquainted with government are the ones to turn. I think it is because there is a learning curve. Since the citizen pool can't choose the cases, and is serving only a week, it would be hard for much corruption. They could handle the paperwork while being proctored at a local courthouse. Unlike those in Congress they would be in no position to trade with the President. No quid pro quo is available. Your procedure is more politically acceptable I imagine though.

Yeah, the constitution. Weekly cycles are not going to stop corruption. Those persons that would qualify to be a party to this "power" can collude with each other. Like Hunter, had no power other than his father. Those people are just as subject to bribery as anyone else. We are all human.
What we can and should do is, define a pardon and it's limits. No pardining for crimes not yet charged, like has been done with Hunter Biden. And now, has been speculated to do for Lis Cheney, and Hillary Clinton.. This is truly blanket immunity, that is greater than the president has right now.
They must have been tried and convicted, for a pardon to even exist. When you think about it, the pleas deal Hunters lawyers attempted to put to the Judge, was exactly what Biden did. The judged noticed that any future charges for other crimes were off the table in his plea deal. They had tried to pull a fast one on the Juidge. But that is what Biden pardon did. If there were a corrupt judge, it could have been accepted and Hunter would never have been in need of a "Pardon" in the first place. These types of limiting can and should be done.

 

[Dale]

Do you think you have enough votes to change the Constitution?

The US written Constitution is a very brief document and significant parts of the original have been removed by amendment. Parts of it are be completely obsolete and other parts are not working well.

The 25th Amendment allowed an unelected President, Gerald Ford, to appoint yet another unelected Vice-President, Nelson Rockefeller. As people told me, why not just hold an election?

There is widespread support for abolishing the Electoral College. Apparently the EC survived because Congress was too busy giving away money to submit such an amendment to the states.

 

[Dale]

No it is not a myth. It does not matter Which states are the smallest or largest at any given time. The electoral system we have evens it out. And the notion of creating other people or groups because of corruption, real or perceived is a myth. It is not the system or the office, but the people in it. Government by the people for the people is through our installing them to that office or removing them from that office. We do not need more agencies or groups of people not answerable to the people. We install, we remove by the power we have to vote.

Due to the Electoral College, candidates running for President spend all their time visiting the LARGE states, those with the most electoral votes. It does not even out. When a Presidential candidate chooses a Vice-Presidential candidate, they want someone from a LARGE state for the same reason, lots of electoral voes.

You seem to think that we should have lots of elected offices. Unfortunately, that is the same system that has failed at the state level and the local level. Most cities and counties in the US have gone to the City Manager or County Manager system to reduce the number of elected offices.

 

[Dale]

If anything, we should be protesting the abuse of the EOs which presidents have used.

The EO was supposed to be for emergencies, but the presidents have used it for their own
agendas.

You seem to be changing the subject instead of answering anything I've said.
By EO, I assume you mean Executive Order. It isn't true that Executive Orders were reserved for emergencies. They are used for many reasons. You have heard that many government documents are classified as "confidential," "secret," or "top secret." That system was set up by an Executive Order issued by President Dwight Eisenhower.

 

[Dale]

This issue of the abuse of powers of the pardon is excellent. I would imagine most Presidents have done some political favors for pardons. Here is such an example with Clinton.

Clinton Pardon of Rich a Saga of Power, Money and Influence

Strategy: The fugitive financier used his former wife, Israeli VIPs and others to press his case with the White House.

www.latimes.com

Your scenario of how it would work is far better than the pure Presidential pardon. I worry about it adding to the bureaucracy and wonder if some way random, citizen "pardon jurors," could be used only after the President has nominated one to be pardoned?

Richard T: "Your scenario of how it would work is far better than the pure Presidential pardon."

Thanks. I did appreciate the link you provided. I had only vaguely heard of Mark Rich and Clinton's pardon. It does seem to be a pattern that Presidents, and Governors, issue controversial pardons shortly before leaving office. I agree that both political parties have abused the pardoning power and that is why it clearly needs reform.

 

[ralliann]

Due to the Electoral College, candidates running for President spend all their time visiting the LARGE states, those with the most electoral votes. It does not even out. When a Presidential candidate chooses a Vice-Presidential candidate, they want someone from a LARGE state for the same reason, lots of electoral voes.

You seem to think that we should have lots of elected offices. Unfortunately, that is the same system that has failed at the state level and the local level. Most cities and counties in the US have gone to the City Manager or County Manager system to reduce the number of elected offices.

No, I don't want lots of elected Offices. I want our elected offices to retain the power of their office.
It they appoint people to exercise a function, or an agency, they are responsible over it. No more agencies making the shots, and the persons in it continuing for years through presidency after presidency. That is what the chevron decision concerned. The power of agencies regulating business with the codes they wrote were taken down in the chevron decision. If certain codes are desired to regulate, then those in elected office to enact codes need to approve each and every single one. Not the agency.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

You seem to be changing the subject instead of answering anything I've said.
By EO, I assume you mean Executive Order. It isn't true that Executive Orders were reserved for emergencies. They are used for many reasons. You have heard that many government documents are classified as "confidential," "secret," or "top secret." That system was set up by an Executive Order issued by President Dwight Eisenhower.

It wasn't my intent to change the subject of the thread.

However, you are correct, the EO wasn't established just for emergencies, for this I stand corrected.

What where they for?

Here's what's in Wikipedia;

Basis in the United States Constitution​

The United States Constitution does not have a provision that explicitly permits the use of executive orders. Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution simply states: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." Sections 2 and 3 describe the various powers and duties of the president, including "He shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed".[4]

The U.S. Supreme Court has held[5] that all executive orders from the president of the United States must be supported by the Constitution, whether from a clause granting specific power, or by Congress delegating such to the executive branch.[6] Specifically, such orders must be rooted in Article II of the US Constitution or enacted by the Congress in statutes. Attempts to block such orders have been successful at times, when such orders either exceeded the authority of the president or could be better handled through legislation

I believe the EO's are still being abused by the presidents.