politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
It’s time to get rid of pardons.
I never really understood WHY the president got to pardon people if the idea behind america is that nobody is above justice there. I mean i know its a LIE, but like lie better.
There are good reasons, but those reasons only exist in some utopia once in a lifetime bullshit crap, like pardoning draft dodgers for Vietnam.
Apart from that it seems its always been used for absolute bullshit
I didn’t even know that Carter did that. Fucking good. Drafting people into such an overtly bullshit war was straight up evil.
So says everyone, but WHAT ARE those reasons?
"miscarriages of justice"? but i agree that those should not be arbited by the executive
If the miscarriages of justice is proven aren't people automatically released. What does a pardon have tondo with anything here?
drug crimes, for example… if the US govt decided selling weed is all of a sudden no longer a crime, that doesn’t automatically release people from prison
or if someone did something technically illegal, but the circumstance around it made it clearly the moral choice (perhaps something like whistleblowers)
the world is messy and no law perfectly covers all bases… pardons are the same as prosecutorial or police discretion. in an ideal world, the harshness of the law should be tempered by morality of the individuals at many levels
of course that falls apart when the morality at every level is non existent, but that is legitimate purpose/reason. imo the discussion shouldn’t be about the overall legitimacy of the powers themselves, but in the trade-offs and lack of real protections from abuse, or who gets to have a say in those things
I still don't see a good reason you couldn't go through a bill, running in front of congress, for this, as well as the Vietnam draft dodgers mentioned above.
I still don't see a good reason you couldn't go through a bill, running in front of congress, for this, as well as the Vietnam draft dodgers mentioned above.
because entire laws aren’t meant to handle individual cases. making laws is slow and laborious, and is meant to cover the broad strokes
the real fix is to have a panel or something, similar to how you have judges etc now, and i’m sure there are other solutions
the fact that the currently implementation is rife with abuse - and only pretty recently at that - isn’t a reason the whole thing shouldn’t exist (which is what the thread was about)
appeals are often either not available or not fair
Biden and Obama pardoned a bunch of people (thousands iirc) who were doing long federal sentences for weed possession.
But you know, it's theatre to justify having the pardon power. The heartwarming story at the end of the daily newsreel of corruption and conflict.
The better solution there is to fucking reschedule it. Treating the burns while the fire still rages is stupid.
Get rid of pardons, their abuse is more damaging than their utility.
I guess I understand what the purpose of being able to pardon people is. What I really meant was why is pardoning something unilaterally allowed to the president of the United States? That seems like giving a lot of “judge jury and executioner” power to one person based on a farce of democracy thats controlled by the elite of the US.
I realized I’ve answered my own question as i was typing it.
The purpose is, ostensibly, to prevent some form of miscarriage of justice or an over harsh sentencing. Think the guy who they tried to charge with a felony for harmlessly throwing a sandwich at a federal officer, if they had managed to convict instead of failing to even get an indictment. Or it could also be used to retroactively forgive people convicted of breaking a law that has since been overturned. Like if they decriminalize weed possession, those already convicted while the law was in place don't automatically get their sentences overturned.
But it is a power that should be rarely needed, judiciously applied, and have sensible guardrails on it. But the founders were confident that the people wouldnt elect self centered autocrats, that congress and the courts wouldn't be filled with sycophants, opportunists, and cowards, and that the public wouldn't stand for blatant corrupt uses of presidential powers. But here we are.
Frankly, if we can't stop blatantly corrupt abuse of the pardon powers or even have basic limitations on it (like no self pardons) then that power should be amended out of the constitution.
Many of the founders of the USA were themselves self centred autocrats so I’m not entirely certain that the system isn’t working exactly as intended.
A law that releases prisoners of a certain crime can be made retroactive. What the law can't do is make something a crime retroactively.
Can be, but often isn't
This president has taught us it’s time to get rid of a lot of things.
We knew that in 2020. I'll never forgive Biden for his inaction on reducing executive power.