Should Presidents and Governors have pardon powers?

Should Presidents and Governors really have the power to pardon and commute sentences? I know it’s in the constitution and all, and every President and Governor has used it, and been criticized for it. But why is it necessary? It’s simply a tool being used to get your friends off the hook. Republicans pardon other Republicans. Democrats pardon other Republicans. Can’t we have a rule stating you can only pardon 5 people every year or 2 per year?

Because wrongs need to be righted by elected officials.

Because the SCOTUS can refuse to hear cases.

1 Like

Good response. But should there be caps on the number of pardons?

checks and balances. pretty fundamental to the 3 branch federal government of the US.

it is one check the executive branch has over the judicial.

the judicial certainly has its checks over the executive branch as well.

1 Like

Are there caps on the number of wrongs?

1 Like

Absolutely they should have those powers!

It is though incumbent upon the electorate to choose widely who they elect so that Presidents and Govenors are of the sound mind and temperament to hopefully make the best judgements possible in what pardons and commutations they dispense.

Personally I am against pardoning and commutations.

Constitutionally though, I am for having the power for those offices.

Good thread Calvin.

The problem OP is presenting is that it often isn’t used to right wrongs (see Arpaio). At least the D’Souza situation can be argued, even if disagreed with. Arpaio spent his career abusing his power, and I would assert pardoning him was abusive of power.


And you’re very much entitled to your opinion. I feel exactly the same way about drug dealers with gun charges.

Republics can be messy at times.

Yes. Executive needs this check on judicial.

It is a rather awkward nod to a monarchic system of government, but still justified in my opinion.

That’s the problem set forth, and why I questioned its existence.

Fairness and injustice are subjective concepts. Punishment for crimes are based on judicial reviews and laws passed by the legislative branch.

I have a hard time wrapping around the concept that the executive of a state or country can magically wipe away a sentence agreed upon.

1 Like

Lets take Manafort as an example. He’s charged with crimes from YEARS ago that were already investigated by the FBI.

If he’s now charged tried and convicted . . . is it really because he broke the law, or is it a political prosecution? Should he be pardoned by a future president?

What wrong did Trump correct by pardoning Arpaio?

Should he get away with breaking the law just because someone in years past decided to look the other way? Are we a nation of laws or not?

So if in a year or two some new eye’s looked into Hillary’s e-mail server and she was charged with a crime you’d be good with that?

Go ahead and answer the next obvious question.

Why can’t you answer his reasonable question?

But what check is on the President’s pardoning power? Congressional impeachment I suppose but I don’t think that cannot undo a corrupt pardon.

Go for it. If she broke the law, and there’s enough evidence to prosecute, go get her! I didn’t even support her or vote for her, but there are people here who did who say the same thing.

Are we a nation of laws or not?

What wrong did Trump correct by pardoning Arpaio?