Read the article below, from Time For Kids on February 23rd, 2001. When you are done, answer the following in a paragraph: Would you support an amendment to the Constitution eliminating the Presidents' power to pardon? (Minimum length for credit is 4 sentences; to get full credit, 8 sentences are necessary)
Pardon the Mess
By Nelida Gonzalez Cutler
Bill Clinton has been out of the White House for a month, but he's still front-page news. On his last day in office, Clinton issued 141 pardons. Under the Constitution, the President has the power to grant pardons, which officially forgive people for committing crimes.
Clinton pardoned his brother Roger, who had been convicted on a drug charge. He pardoned a former Cabinet member who had been found guilty of lying to FBI agents. And he pardoned one of the nation's most-wanted criminals.
Marc Rich, 65, has spent the past 17 years living in Switzerland to avoid being put on trial in the U.S. The billionaire businessman was wanted for breaking the law by trading oil with Iran, an enemy of the U.S. at the time of the trades, and for breaking tax laws. Rich ran away and gave up his U.S. citizenship rather than face the prospect of spending years in prison.
Both Democrats and Republicans have criticized the pardon. "The pardoning of fugitives stands our criminal-justice system on its head and makes a mockery of it," says New York Democratic Senator Charles Schumer.
Were Laws Broken?
Congress and the Justice Department are investigating the pardon. Last Thursday the Justice Department announced that it would begin a criminal investigation to find out whether laws had been broken when the pardon was granted. Investigators want to determine whether Rich's money somehow bought the pardon.
Denise Rich, Marc Rich's ex-wife, asked President Clinton to pardon her former husband. She is a friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton's and has given large sums of money to the Democratic Party, Mrs. Clinton's Senate campaign and Bill Clinton's presidential library. Bill Clinton insists that "any suggestion that improper factors had anything to do with the decision are absolutely false."
Rich's pardon can't be undone. But some in Congress believe it is time to examine this unchecked presidential power. Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania wants a constitutional amendment to give Congress the right to overturn pardons.
Pardoning A President
On a Sunday morning in September 1974, President Gerald Ford stunned the nation by granting his former boss, Richard M. Nixon, a "full, free and absolute pardon."
Nixon had been the President and had resigned the office just a month before in order to avoid impeachment. In 1972 workers for Nixon's re-election campaign had broken into rival headquarters at the Watergate hotel in Washington, D.C. A committee from Congress recommended that Nixon be impeached for covering up the break-in and abusing his presidential powers.
Without Ford's pardon, Nixon might have gone on trial. The investigation and resignation of Nixon had already caused a national crisis. "Only I, as President, have the constitutional power to shut and seal this book," said Ford.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
63 comments:
Yes I believe that the presidents ability to pardon should be eliminated or be put into the power of congress so atleast any pardons that do go through would have to be voted on by congress liminating the presidents ability to abuse his power. If someone has a drug charge the presidents brother or not that person should have the same penalties as any other person. Also I think these pardons are going against the constitution that all men are created equal and so all men should have the same equal punishment.
And Once Again First Comment
The President should not have the constitutional power to pardon federal offenders. Often times, offenders have connections with the President. For example, the only reason Scooter Libby's prison sentence was commuted was because Libby was Cheney's Chief of Staff. Furthermore, the eighteen people who were recently pardoned by Bush had lawyers with connections to the President. Also, there are few checks and balances. The President's power to pardon is absolute and cannot be overturned. As a result, the President can easily abuse his power to pardon and nothing would happen to him. So, the President should not be able to pardon federal offenders.
I wouldn't want to eliminate the President's power to pardon. A serious and honest President wouldn't take advantage of the power he owns to excuse their family and friends for what they have done. I understand though that we have had presidents in the past who have done so, for example, Bill Clinton. It seems as though a lot of Clinton's pardons were for people he was acquainted with, such as his brother, and a former Cabinet member. Saying this I think the U.S. government should use their system of Checks and Balances in this situation. I agree with Senator Arlen in saying that Congress should have the power to overturn pardons. As the people of the U.S. we should be able to trust our president, but there is never a way of knowing.
I think that the presidents power to pardon should not be elminated. I think that the president wont abuse there power. Even if the president abuse his power the congress could over run the president. Also I dont think that the president would betrad us.
kyle bennett.
i think that the president shuold not have the power to pardon because they could get anyone out of jail. and any president could get a person out of jail even if it is a mass mureder. and they do it at the end of there term so they wont get hated for it by the people. and they will probebly just do it again hooping that a different president will get them out of jail.
I think that since its worked fine so long theirs no reason whatsoever to change it. I will admit that some people may use this power poorly but if we exclude certain people to this right as president we would be setting a poor example. I think that maybe we should make it so that only during the first year as president can you pardon people.
If I had to choose whether to support or not support an amendment to the Constitution on whether pardoning should be illegal or not I would say yes. I would support an amendment to make pardoning by the president not legal. I think this because of a very obvious reason...because if you commit a crime you should go on trial. I do not believe it is fair that some people who are accused of committing a crime should get out of a trial by being pardoned. Our founders have worked so hard trying to make a government in which "All men are created equals," therefore pardoning should not be allowed. If one person can get out of having consequences for their actions then they are not equal compared to people with not so many "connections." I believe that not all presidents would use this power in a negative way. Although as proved in the article there are still people out there who would abuse this power, like they say with great power come great responsibility. I think that if I was part of the congress I would use my power to propose the amendment of getting rid pardoning power.
I think that the president shouldn't have his powers taken away to pardon someone. I strongly believe that only a real good president wouldn't take the advantages to pardon who ever he wanted to just because they bribed him on his last few days. Even thought we’d had some presidents in the past that I think make bad choices. Even thought we had one miss happen I still think that the presidents should have the right to pardon people if necessary. But if that doesn't work I think that the people of the U.S should think about whom their voting for before they vote.
I would fully support an amendment to the constitution eliminating the Presidents' power to pardon for the following reasons; 1)if the president thinks that a serial killer had no right to be in jail for what he did, then he could just pardon him and let him go. If the killer was just put in jail, then he could be let free and start killing again. 2) If someone was arrested for drugs, and they were just put in jail n had been pardoned, once he got back, he would probably start doing drugs again maybe even worse.
Yes, I would support an amendment to the Constitution eliminating the Presidents' power to pardon. Personally, I feel that it is an easy way for a President to take advantage of his/her power. In the article it is said that Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich because of his wife's gift of large sums of money to the Democratic Party. Even thought Bill Clinton said, "any suggestion that improper factors had anything to do with the decision are absolutely false," he still could have done it for that reason anyway or for another reason. I also think it is good to get rid of Presidents' pardoning because they might help a friend or family member to get out of jail. They have done this anyway even if they had commited big crimes. Such as Bill Clinton pardoning his brother Roger, who had been convicted on a drug charge. Or Gerald Ford pardoning the old President Richard M. Nixon who ahd had broken into rival headquarters at the Watergate Hotel and abusing his presidential powers. Those are only mild crimes, but they still deserve the time and punishment others would get in jail. Pardoning people from jail would could make a danger for people in communities and a lesson wouldn't be taught for what they had done wrong.
I support an amendment to the Constitution eliminating the President's power to pardon. I think that it is a good way for the President to take too much power and take advantage. The President can pardon their friends or family even if they did something very wrong. Like in the article. It said that Bill Clinton pardoned his friends husband even though he did something wrong. I fell this way because i think that it should go though the legislative branch. I think that if the President wants to pardon someone, they should first ask the legislative branch. And if two threes of them say no, then its vetoed! Also the judicial branch because it deals with the jury. And if a person have done something wrong, they should explain themselves more so that the judges doesn't claim them guilty.
I think that the president shouldn't have the right to have take all the pardon.I believe that only good preident who wouldn't take the advantges to pardon. In the past I think that the preident's all made bad choies. No, I wouldn't support in any way.
I would support them amending the constitution so no president could pardon people. I think that this is not right because if someone does something bad then they should not just get off the hook and be free. The president could let anyone go so why would they wait till the last couple days until a new present steps in to pardon these people? I think they wait because then once they are out of the presidents seat then people will forget about them pardoning bad people. I think that is wrong because then if someone committed the worst crime ever the president can just let them out and go free. Well if this person is very bad then the next president will just have to put them back in jail. Well the first president never let them out then we would never have the problem of getting him back.
I think I would support making an ammendment to the Constitution allowing President's to pardon someone. I think this should be allowed only if it is really necessary. If the President starts pardoning everyone who has done a crime, then I wouldn't be for it. If you commit a serious crime and are put in jail for it, then good. If you are a good person and make a mistake and you are arrested and put on trial, then I think you have a right to be pardoned. Unlike Bill Clinton who pardoned lots of people and they were pretty serious. I think the president should take it into real consideration whenever they pardon someone. Other than that I think pardoning should be allowed.
I would support an amendment to the Constitution eliminating the Presidents' power to pardon. I think that the president can't have to much power and take advantage. It is not right for the president to pardon their friends and family members even if they did a terrible thing. Clinton pardoned his family member and friends husband. If someone commits a serious crime and are pardoned by the president they can do something wrong again. If someone does something wrong they should be put in jail. I feel that the president can only pardon someone if they have a good reason. Pardoning someone is not a good thing when there is no reason for it.
Should the president have the power to pardon, good question. In my personal opinion I think that the president should NOT have the power to pardon people. My reasons being, say the president is in league with a criminal or gang or something, but one of his criminal buddies gets in prison, so his friend becomes president so he can pardon him out of jail. This situation is very real, that’s why I think the president should not have the power to pardon. Plus all the power of being president may go to head, causing him to make stupid decisions, like busting criminals out of jail. If you were president, all the power might go to your head causing you to make dumb conclusions or decisions. That is why we should look out for people who look like a good president but really are not. I know by the sounds of it that it would appear that I question Barrack Obama, NO , I don’t. I think America made a great decision when they decided to make Barrack Obama our next president.
I would support an amendment to the Constitution eliminating the president's power to pardon. Bill Clinton was really crazy issuing 141 pardons on his last day in office. He took advantage of that and so did President Ford. I can't think of any way the president would need to pardon anyone, so I would support an amendment like that. Pardoning just seems useless and can really damage the country if the wrong decision was made. A wrong decision was made when Bill Clinton freed one of the nation's most wanted criminals! That is completely crazy and too many people are wasting time investigating the pardons. I don’t think the President should have the right to pardon anyone.
I don't think the President should have the power to pardon anyone. Pardoning shows that the President could just be lazy and not want to deal with a trial. Or that we have a really bad president who likes to pardon dangerous criminals. Bill Clinton probably wasn't the only one who did this. I wouldn't be surprised if President Nixon (impeached) pulled this crud. Presidents think they can do what they want. It's sad really (I am positive i have said that i every comment I ever posted). Okay well that's all I got. But yeah, I don't think they should be able to pardon anyone!!!
Yes of course i support an amendment to the constitution to eleiminate the presidents power to parden unchecked. When the president appoints a cabinet member congress has to approve it so why shouldn't congress have to approve his pardons. Couldn't the Supreme court say that his pardons were unconstitutional?
I think the presidant should not have the power to pardon.I think this because that would give the presidant too much power to do what he wants.Say a person who gets themselves in jail for somthing not serious but enough to be punished for then they get pardoned but they didnt deserve it. Mybe there was someone else who should of gotten out enstead.
Yes I would support an amendment to eliminate the president’s power to pardon. I would support this because there is no reason that just because he is the president doesn’t mean he should be able to get then out of prison. His main job is to enforce laws you do that by catching the people who break the laws not by pardoning people who have been convicted of breaking laws. He shouldn’t be able to pardon somebody because they could pay the President money to get him out of prison. He could also get people out of prison and then use then to his advantage by having them kill somebody. Some of the time the president good pardon people just because he feels that they are innocent of that they just shouldn’t be in jail and what makes the president smarter than the jury. I mean come on why don’t we just let the President decide who goes to jail. If people started offering money to the president if he were to pardon them then I’m sure that the U.S. would be full of newly pardoned drug abusers and murders and al sorts of other criminal. They were put in jail for a reason what reason does the President have to pardon them.
I think that The President should not have the ability to pardon peopel. I not critising Bill Clinton but who or what gave him the right to pardon the guy on The FBI's most wanted list or Marc Rich. The right to pardon should be selected by the President and then be approved by congress and the States. As Kelby said what Bill Cliton did was in violation of the constitution. His brother should have a fair trail like anone else would.
I would support an amendment to the constitution for eliminating the president's right to pardon. My opinion is that the president shouldn't have the power to pardon. This is my opinion because it gives the president way to much power. For example Clinton pardoned his brother, who was convicted of drug charge, his brother might have been guilty, but Clinton pardoned him just because he was his brother. That is wrong in many ways but it sounds like the president was pardoning him for personal reasons. Presidents aren't always responsible even though they should be. They can pardon their friends and family if they wanted to without giving reason even if they committed a horrible crime. Pardoning without a good reason is wrong on many levels. This is why I would support an amendment to the constitution eliminating the presidents power to pardon.
I would support an amendment to the Constitution eliminating the Presidents' power to pardon. In the Constitution it said that you can not buy or sell justice. By allowing the president to pardon anyone justice may end up being bought. Marc Rich, a billionaire businessman might have been given a better chance of being pardoned because of the money that his wife had donated to the Clintons and Democrats. It seems as if he almost bought the pardon. Presidents obviously abuse this power to pardon people. On his last day in office Clinton made 141 pardons. Another reason that the president should not have the power to pardon is because it is an unchecked power. Under the system of checks and balances,each branch of government can check and control the powers of the other branches. But this power of the executive branch is not checked by either the judicial or legislative branch of government. The president could pardon whoever he wanted without anyone having to approve it.
I could go both ways. I think that if a president just lets anyone out of jail then there is really no point in puting them in jail in the first place.I think that there should be limites.Like they can let out people who did very minor crime or people who have less then a year left to be in jail.I think that there should also be a limit to how many people they pardon.It should be ten or less.I think if it was more than ten it would be way out of hand.So this is how i feel about pardons.
I would support an amendment to the Constitution eliminating the Presidents' power to pardon. This is because some pardons granted by the president seem unfair. Some presidents used pardons to rescue their friends. For example, President Gerald Ford granted his former boss, Richard M. Nixon, a full pardon even though he covered up the fact that workers for his re-election campaign had broken into rival headquarters at the Watergate hotel in Washington, D.C.
Another example was when Clinton pardoned his brother Roger, who had been convicted on a drug charge. Even more, he pardoned a former Cabinet member who had been found guilty of lying to FBI agents. He even pardoned one of the nation's most-wanted criminals!!! By adding this amendment you would limit unreasonable use of pardons by the president.
I don't think that the President alone should be given the right to pardon. I would definanlty support an amendment to the Constitution eliminating the President's power to pardon. I think that this power should not be put into the hands of one person. That's just too much power. For example, letting that man on the FBI's most wanted list it just not right. Letting a criminal get away? I don't think so. If the power to pardon was given to a large group like Congress. It would be less likely that something as bad as this would happen. At least then many people would find out information about what should be pardoned and then come to a reasonable decision.
i believe that a president can only pardon someone who hasnt comitted a huge crime. plus the president should only be aluod 50 pardons instead of random people that killed people and fled to other countries not to get arrested. some people deserve to be pardoned, and other should never be let out of jail or anything.
I think that the president should not be able to pardon so easily. I am not saying that want pardoning banned, but that there should be more of a process to pardon. For example, the president should be able to pardon if 60% or more of congress supports his pardon. Just because the president knows someone well (like clinton and his brother) does not mean that the person didn't commit a crime.
I think that the president should not be able to pardon so easily. I am not saying that want pardoning banned, but that there should be more of a process to pardon. For example, the president should be able to pardon if 60% or more of congress supports his pardon. Just because the president knows someone well (like clinton and his brother) does not mean that the person didn't commit a crime.
i do believe that the president should be stripped of the power to pardon. But if they made it so the congress had to agree with or ratify the pardon in order to make it a real pardon i might be ok with that. I don't think that the president should have that much power because they may take advantage of it and mess up real bad. A future president could pardon a super mega criminal of death or something. I don't think that a president should be able to pardon their family and friends just because they know them. they could be super evil. Former president Bill Clinton, on his last day before the innauguration, pardoned 141 people including his brother who was arrested because of drugs and a friends ex-husband, who was a billionaire was pardoned. He traded oil with Iran and avoided taxes and Clinton pardoned him because his ex-wife donated money to the democratic party. If a person is pardoned who was really bad they could go out and do something else bad. I think that a president should only pardon if he/ she has a reasonable reason.
I do not know what I wouldsay because it depends on the crime that it commited. If it a feliny the president should not be able to interfere. If it is something minor than he os she should be able to interfere. I belive that Kevin is right but, I think that that that is too much to ask because that could be considered a violation of the right to a speedy trial. I dissagree with Haley and Chris because they would not pardon that had killed someone than they would be hated and never be let into politics again.
I would not support an amendment that eliminated the president’s power to pardon. Pardoning is a way of forgiving someone. If someone is caught doing something jail-worthy then don’t you think that they would have learned their lesson already? Pardoning is also a way of celebrating a president’s term in office and a way of healing and creating a stable Union . Even the president makes mistakes so they should be kind and forgiving. Also, it is the president’s job to make good decisions. So we trust the presidents by electing them, so that they will make good judgments and pardon people. President George H.W. Bush noted that pardons post-wartime are important to "put bitterness behind us and look to the future." So I think that it would not be good to have an amendment that eliminated the president’s ability to pardon criminals.
I would definatly support an amendment to the Constitotion not allowing the president to pardon. To me looking at the due process of law it contridicts everything that just went on to convict this criminal anyway. I mean to say after a criminal is just convicted of a crime and put in prison, the president can sign a document and the criminal is free to go. One other thing that i also don't care for in the system of pardoning, is the fact thta in the example givin in the article, Clinton was almost bribed. The article mentioned Clinton was giving many endorsments by the ex-wife of Marc Rich in order to grant his pardon. This means that eventhough there technically was no illegal buisness going on, I could endorse Mr. Bush or upcoming Mr. Obama to get someone pardoned. I think that this is wrong, becase a criminal is someone who has gotten a fair trial and sent to jail, however pardoning is just untieing all of the work which was just done. That is why i would support an amendment to the Constition banning he presidens capibility to pardon.
I would support a amendment for eliminating being able to pardon. Imagine this, a president’s friend ends up being accused of aiding a terrorist. The president thinks that this friend wouldn’t do anything to this country. So the president issues a pardon for his friend and he will no long have to go to court or go to jail if convicted. A few months later the world finds out that there has been a terrorist attack somewhere in the country. Surprisingly the president’s friend help get the terrorists get into the country. This is why the presidents shouldn’t be able to grant pardons. Also during Clinton’s term he issued 141 pardons. That seems like a little to much imagine the chances of the people that actually did the crime. Now they are back and are free to live their life.
i think that presidents should be able to pardon people but if so the pardon has to be aproved by congress. as well as they shouldn't be aloud as many pardons as they wamt. they should get a serten amount of pardons. i also think that it would give too much power to the president and a good seperation of power because power wouln't be shared.
I would absolutely support an amendment to the constitution banning the president to be able to pardon the President's authority to pardon someone. I thought Bill Clinton was a good president, but I can't believe he pardoned a criminal like that. Even though, the Switz guy was his friend and they donated money to the Clinton's library, he shouldn't have pardoned someone on the most wanted list for illegally trading oil with a middle eastern country. I mean what if Barack Obama is friends with this cerial killer, he has the power to pardon this killer, and if someone like that ever got pardoned, it would be very dangerous. Especially, if someone was an under-cover terrorist that the president knows well. I mean with all of the pardons that Bill Clinton made (141!), that's pretty crazy. The President has enough power as it is. He is the top of the executive branch the the National government, and a potentially dangerous power like that affect the Nation very badly.
I would support an amendment to the Constitution, eliminating the president's power to pardon. I do not think it is right that the president can pardon anyone he desires with any crime that he/she has commited. I also think that if a president has the power to pardon, then what type of crimes does he pardon? If he thinks something is not worth punishing, and yet the rest of the nations says that it's a big deal, then would he go with the people? Or just pardon the person? I believe that giving the president the power to pardon is giving the president to much power. I think it would be better if the Judicial Branch would have the power to pardon, with the permission of the other two branches. I also think that the president should get a limited amount of pardons a year, if they were still allowing pardons...
I think if the president is going to pardon somebody there should be some restrictions. if there like, a most wanted criminal for example,
you should not be allowed to be pardoned. so i think they should onlyy be allowed to be pardoned if there criminal charge is not very severe
I think that the power to pardon is unconstitutonal. Even though it is in the constitution those people were put in prison by the due process of law. People should just have to face the time they were sentenced. Also if you are friends with the president you should not be able to ask for a pardon for someone you know. Also the presidents friends a people he knows that are in jail should have to stay. It is completely ridiculious how Clinton pardoned 141 criminals. The only way you shold be pardoned was if you were wrongly trialed and granted the mistrial. Or if it was a very small crime and you have a clean record.
I would most definately support an amendment to the Constitution eliminating the Presidents' power to pardon. Giving the privlage to pardon to a president is the ideal chance to use it however he may wish, whether it be fair or not. By doing so unfairly, the process of a fair trial is completely ignored and not taken into consideration. This is especially true if someone close to the president like a wife or a daughter/son was on trial. Any president wouldnt think twice about letting them go to jail. However, if another person whom the same president did not know commited the same crime underneath the same circumstances then they would actually be put on trial and sent to jail if found guilty. If a president should have this privlage then the checks and balances should come into play. Meaning before giving a pardon the legislative branch and the judicial branch should give their consent and permission to let the president give the pardon.
I think that it is good for the president to have the power to pardon people. It should only be used for certain cases when it is in the interest of the nation. When Ford gave a pardon to Nixon he put an end to a long crisis in our country. When Clinton used this power to pardon 141 people it was abuse of power. Criminals should not be excused because they are friends with someone in government. There should be a way to make sure that there is no abuse of power. Congress should have the power to override a pardon. I would support a constitutional amendment.
I think that the president can't just go around pardering people. I can not belive that Clinton gave 141 pardons on his last day. Of coarse he does it on his last day because he knows that most American citizens would find it unfair. I think there should be an important reason for pardoning someone. If the person is a criminal, then that person should do his time like everybody else that is a criminal. I agree with Senator Arlen. I think that there needs to be a constitutional amendment to give Congress the right to overturn pardons. I also think that the president should not be allowed to pardon at the end of his presidency. I think the president should have to go through steps in order to pardon someone. It will be interesting t osee who George Bush is going to pardon.
I would definatly support this amendment. One reason is that it unbalances the three branches in giving the Executive branch too much power. By allowing any criminal who commited a clear offence it also increases the chance of corruption. Not only that but it breaks the rule of American courts being fair, as this power only allows specific criminals to be pardoned. Pardons are just completly unfair, as a person who’s charged with drug posseion and then another person who commits the same crime is pardoned comepletly breaks our rule of our courts being fair.
I would support an amendment that eliminated the Presidents' power to pardon. The Presidents' ability to pardon seems unfair to me. If a person commits a crime they should go on trial, and should serve their time, not be able to be pardoned. By pardoning someone, its like saying, sure you committed a crime but don't worry there's no consequences. Every lawbreaker should serve his or her punishment. Another reason this is unfair, is that close friends and family of the President are more likely to be pardoned than... I don't know, lets say some farmer from Idaho. Why does a senator deserve the pardon more than the farmer if they both commit the same crime? The answer is the senator does not deserve the pardon more. If you pardon the senator from a crime, wouldn’t it be fair to pardon the farmer as well? Yes, it would, but that probably wouldn't happen. I agree with Serena in that if the president does have the right to pardon, there should be some checks and balances from the judicial branch. I would at least feel better knowing the Supreme Court gave permission for the president to pardon someone.
I think that we should keep pardons, but if the crime is bad enough then it should not be pardoned. Like Billy i feel that if a person commits a crime, then they should go to jail. But if the crime is so minimal, then i think they should be excused.
by juan salazar
i wouldn't support an amendment to the constitution eliminating the presidents power to pardon. if the president pardons it will give some prisoners the ability to have a second chance. by pardon it will give an opertuity to try to perswade the presiden to pardon. lets say u were in jail for stealing a car. u can right a letter to the president to try to make him pardon u.
by melissa h
I don't think the decision to pardon someone should be in just the president's hands. Branches of government involving a numerous amount of people like the congress or Supreme should make a decision off of multiple insights. Almost like a jury. I believe a pardon is ok in minimal crimes, like speeding, as long as no one is hurt (or worse...). If you have killed someone or harmed a life(s) in someway, that is more severe. Pardoning isn't even good in the first place, though. You've done something wrong, you know you did it, you had a fair trial, you should serve your time. There shouldn't be exceptions to certain laws. We should listen to the saying "All men are created equally."
I say that the president shouldn't be allowd to pardon. I say this because presidents have excused ONLY their friends who have caused a gigantic crime. This also means that they can pardon companies that haven't paid back major loans and give them a bailout like George Bush. By doing this it could worsen our recession crisis. All in all I think that letting only one person have the ability to pardon anyone is not a great democratic idea.
I would support the ammendment of eliminating the the President's power to pardon. I think it was unconstitutional and irresponsible that President Clinton gave out 141 pardons on his last day of office. he even gave out a pardon to one of the nations most-wanted criminals. Thats just not right. I am not entirly sure as to why he would do this, but whatever the reason, he just should not have done it. I find it quite unfair. If a person is supposed to be heading to trial for a crime he or she has done, then he or she should go. It's basicly saying, " Oh it's okay if you commit a crime you wont get a trail or get punished for it." So, in my opinion, i find the amendment to the Constitution eliminating the President's power to pardon very helpful.
I think eliminating the President's power to pardon is a fantastic idea. First of all, if someone commits a crime, do you think its fair that they go free while other people before this time had to spend their time in jail. Although they diserve it, still dosn't make it fair. The saying You do the crime, you do the time means something. Why in the world would someone let someone slip away after doing a crime? They should go to Jail no matter what.
At first I thought I didn't want to change the Constitution with this amendment. But once I read the part about congress having the power to over turn a pardon I thought it was a good idea. I tihnk it terrible that Clinton gave out so many pardons on his last day, who would do that and even give criminals who deserved to be in jail a pardon. I also don't think it was rigt that President Gerald Ford gave a pardon to President Nixon, who had resigned from office, Nixon did a bad thing and deserved to be punished. So seeing all the mistakes former presidents have made with pardons I think Congress should be aloud to overturn pardons.
To me the idea of the presidents being able to pardon people is extremely random. I think something like that should be left for the judical branch only but can be vetoed by either the executive branch or legislative branch.
considering that bill clinton let out a very high wanted criminal from convictment. If we cant change atleast that then the president should have the judical branch vote on his decision before it actualy hapens.
The president shouldn't be able to pardon criminals. One man can't decide for himself whether or not the crime is pardonable, it takes a league of brilliant minds. If the court knows the crime wasn't terrible, obviously the criminal's sentance in jail will be shorter and less severe. Plus, the criminal could plead guilty to shorten his time in prison. In the case that the court makes a mistake and convicts the wrong person, that's just what happens. If the court didnt recognize their mistake, that would be terrible for the wrongly convicted man or woman, however the presuident wouldnt recognize it either; therefore the president may wrongly pardon the criminal
I dont think that the president should have his/her power to pardon taken away. Only corrupt presidents would pardon dangerous criminals. I Do however think that there should be a check on the power to pardon.
i beleive that if the senate does not agree with the presidents pardon they can overturn it and it will not happen
I do not think that the president should have their right to pardon taken away. Because maybe they have a reasonm for why they should. But then again, they should have that right taken away if they were not that great of a president, or if they do not have a reason on why they did pardon someone. Because if the person they pardon is a really bad criminal, then it might be a danger to American citizens.
LOGAN ROSS
I believe that the president should keep his power to be able to pardon a criminal, only a bad president would pardon somebody who deserves to be imprisoned in the first place.
this matter is somewhat in the hands of the people in that, if they elect a president that is outrageous to pardon a dangerous criminal than they have voted wrongly and should not put all the blame solely on the president
I think the president should be able to pardon people. However, only if there is a trial in which the president has to prove why he should pardon this person. For example what Ford did to pardon Nixon was wrong. He should have had the senate vote if he is alowwed to pardon Nixon. I also think the president should have a limit to how many people he can pardon. Like Bill Clinton pardon 141 people. I think that is way to many pardons. I wouldn't support an amendment to fully eliminate pardons but i would support an amendment to limit the presidents power to pardon.
I would definitely support that amendment. I don't think presidents should have that kind of power. If a president only had a few days left in office and wanted people to like him, he might pardon a lot of people. I think that is unfair. If a president has that kind of power, he might abuse it. I think if a president has the power to just go around pardoning people, then one of the other branches should at least be able to check that power somehow. If no one can check that power then things might get out of control. I think they should amend the constitution so that one of the other branches can overrule the pardon.
willy ceperley
I dont know how something like slavery goes on in america and even in the world. I dont know why this slavery hasnt been stopped yet , how could this matter be unnoticed. we hear about about slavery over seas and in third world countrys but its also going on right in america, under everyones noses . I would of had no idea that there is slavery in america.
Post a Comment