At its best, the presidential pardon power is a tool of mercy, an instrument to correct abuses of power and miscarriages of justice. At its worst, this imperial power can be employed as a corrupt tool to suppress evidence, block punishment for great offenses and crimes and pour a path for illegal efforts to circumvent constitutional guardrails essential to the preservation of the rule of law and the republic.
Doubts about the wisdom and judgment of pardons granted over the past half century by Presidents Gerald Ford, George H. Bush, Joe Biden and Donald Trump, have made a compelling case for the amendment of the Constitution to subject this most discretionary of the executive powers to the doctrine of checks and balances.
The restraints on the pardon power that the framers of the Constitution thought sufficient to induce its judicious exercise β essentially impeachment and judicial review β seem today to be largely ineffectual, especially the impeachment power, which does not carry much of a stigma, as demonstrated by the recent election of President Trump, who was twice impeached.
The pardon power can inflict harm on the rule of law, particularly if it shields from the threat of punishment those who have abused it for self-gain. Restraints are in order. Walter Mondale, D-Minn. The Mondale Amendment may not have stopped President H. Bush from pardoning Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger, who was prepared to swear at trial that then-Vice President Bush, like President Ronald Reagan, was intimately involved in the arms-for-hostages trade that lay at the center of the Iran-Contra Affair, which violated the Constitution and seven statutes.
A robust debate on the pre-conviction pardons β healthy for Congress and the public β would have been fascinating. Would defenders invoke the speech and debate clause as constitutional protection for members of the Jan.
