re: Presidential pardons should not be allowed any longer.....

quote:

---

Do you know how law is passed?

---

Do you know what executive orders are?

I know laws are passed by Congress. But executive orders aren't about making new laws, they're about putting laws into action or dealing with urgent issues when Congress can’t act fast enough.

If we get rid of executive orders, the president wouldn't be able to lead effectively, especially during crises. It would also give more power to unelected bureaucrats who run these agencies that Congress creates.

quote:

---

Change the Constitution then.

---

It’s this simple. Same with people owning guns. Want to end it? Change the constitution, otherwise sit down and stfu.

quote:

---

If balance of power between the three branches and electing presidents and kings were the goals of the Founding Fathers, presidential pardons certainly don't seem to fit into the equation.

---

What is the check on judicial abuse available to the Executive?

One of the biggest fears of our Founders, second only to abuse of power, was collusion among the branches. The pardon power helps address both of these.

If the Legislative and Judicial collude in a certain manner, the Executive is given a way to intervene. This redundant system is in most elements established in our govt by the Founders. If the Executive and Judicial are aligned and corrupt, the Congress has impeachment and removal powers, among others. If Congress won't impeach corrupt judges / courts for imprisoning people, the Executive can step in.

Our Constitution is set up with the bulk of power given to the Legislative, because it is most closely tied to the People. The problem is that the changes, via elections, come slowly and Congress has grown corrupt over the years and we the voters have refused to hold them accountable at the ballot box.

The pardon power was at first put into the Constitution with the exception of treason, so that an Executive could not conduct treason against the nation and then pardon himself and his co-conspirators. This was later changed to just omit the power of pardons to attach to matters of impeachment, thinking the Congress' power to impeach and remove, with the various punishments they could dole out, being sufficient to guard against treason by the Executive. Pardons are for mercy and to quickly dispose of abuses in the legal system. They go back to the UK and probably further than that.

Yes, the Hunter pardon is a crock of shite, but pardons are there for good reason. Look at the logic of our Founders - they thought this check was so important they even included it for treason. The idea of preventing the innocent from wrongful punishment was that important, as was the consideration for mercy.

Getting rid of pardons would be a horrible idea - Congress still has impeachment and removal, which would be available to them for people like Mayorkas, for example, or Fauci. Fauci still has a protection detail. That can be yanked. Congress can't lock people up, like courts can, but at least they could remove people and some perks, pay, pension etc.

Also, if you really want to get in the weeds, treason against the US could and would, it must, confer treason against individual states, so in the case of treason, states should be able to prosecute for treason, almost through an assimilated crimes scheme (kinda sorta).

What other checks and balances do you advocate getting rid of?

quote:

---

Disagreeing with how executive orders are used

---

You'll hate it when the other side does it.

quote:

---

Pardon timeframe ended on 12/1/24.

---

Thanks. I thought I read 12/31/2024.

quote:

---

Yes, and they are an abomination.

---

EO's are not an abomination but they've definitely gotten out of hand. Reagan's EO on federalism is pretty good. Probably could have been a 'statement' or 'proclamation' though.
An EO explaining that these porn books in school libraries are obscene material and must be looked at for prosecution under statutes for putting obscene material in front of minors, would be a reasonable EO.
Some EOs detailing how the different executive agencies should carry out legislation are reasonable and probably necessary.
Again, some of out of control. I don't think you can just categorically say that all EO's are an abomination, though.

quote:

---

Again, some of out of control. I don't think you can just categorically say that all EO's are an abomination, though.

---

Its the unilateral power it gives one person thats the problem. They may work great when your guy is in office, but you'll hate them when the other guy takes over.

In theory the voters would hold it against the president and party who abused it but we're too far down the us vs them road. There are only a handful of Dems stupid enough to believe muhRussia and muh34 felony convictions but they all pretend to believe the party narrative. And they say similar things about us and the stolen election of 2020 but the overwhelming majority knows that election was stolen and they're fine with that and with the lawfare corruption.

Still, I'd rather not frick around with the Constitution. People regularly call for a Convention of States but that's awfully risky when one of the major political parties is openly hostile to virtually every item in the Bill of Rights.

quote:

---

Presidential pardons should not be allowed any longer.....

---