Conservative groups influential with the Trump administration have pressed for the preemptive acts of clemency.
There’s a world of difference between a pardon issues to prevent malicious prosecution for non-crimew and one issued to people you’ve been instructing to commit crimes
I agree with you but changing the president’s ability to pardon crimes, an absurdly broad power, would require an amendment to the Constitution. I’m afraid that do so is a political impossibility right now. There are frankly too many criminals in office at all levels of government that would do everything they can to impede any such attempt. Trump has already pardoned his followers who betrayed the Constitution and committed treason on Jan-6 and I’ve heard only a peep or two about trying to limit the president’s power of clemency.
So what you’re saying is that you can’t think of any solution that doesn’t include violence?
Where did I suggest violence would work? I agreed that I felt the power of the pardon was too broad and said that I don’t see a viable solution. That doesn’t equal burn everything down.
What is the second solution?
If there is a huge problem that has no solution within the law, that means the problem will not be solved while the law is in place.
So what is the second solution?
You are putting words in my mouth. I never suggested there was a “second solution” that I was advocating for. I specifically said I agreed with the other poster that the power of the pardon was too broad but the Constitution cannot be changed in the current political climate. How does that equate to me advocating violence?
Because if the system can’t be fixed using legal means, then it can only be fixed using illegal means.
You seem to be looking for a quick solution. Are you open to building something better over time?
I didn’t say it couldn’t be fixed by legal means. Saying I don’t know a solution to the problem doesn’t mean that I believe there isn’t a legal solution. It just means I Don’t Know. Is that clearer?
After charges. You can pardon from a conviction or a charge but you can’t grant preemptive pardons because those are effectively immunities.
You are in error. Nixon was pardoned by Ford for any and all crimes he may have committed in office. Carter issued a blanket pardon for all Vietnam draft dodgers whether charged or not. There is nothing in the constitution or court rulings that blocks a preemptive pardon.
The only rule, from an 1866 SCOTUS ruling is that the pardon must come after the crime, whether there have been charges or not.
Edit to add: Trump’s pardon of the Jan-6ers included a preemptive pardon for all those that had not been charged yet.
A pardon was issued, there’s still an argument about how legal it may or may not be and the consensus is that it would not survive legal test.
You can’t pardon someone without them admitting a crime. There is no blanket pardon. The fact no one has tested it does not make it legal but simply untested.
It’s only ever been tried ex parte and they said only federal charges. Any state can try treason.
Maybe the electorate should demand blood… Criminal proceedings would start to look more attractive