Hacker News Reader

Comment by lordnacho | Hacker News Reader

Now suppose the kid who shot the people in Kenosha gets a pardon (I don't know about jurisdiction). What would be the check on presidential power in that case?

I think the pardoning thing is absolutely wrong in the US form, where it is used quite often. I think it's just crazy that you can do something illegal but if you can just talk one guy into it, you are off the hook.

The only case I see where it makes sense is that there's some corner case that everyone can agree on. But then it would involve more than just one guy on his last day in office.

View on HN

The kid could always be charged on some other state-level technicality. These charges would be state-level and therefore not subject to Presidential pardon.

That said, such a limited abuse would not justify ditching the pardon power. History has shown that not having a pardon power would have been impossible - the civil war would have lasted for decades, there would have been mass charges years after Vietnam, without the option of pardon Nixon may never have resigned, etc. A lot of these aren't corner cases, but they were necessary to still have a country.

IMHO, the by far best solution is to have it in a more limited form so it requires more than one guy.

> the civil war would have lasted for decades, there would have been mass charges years after Vietnam

Congress could have passed acts granting blanket pardons to all involved.

> without the option of pardon Nixon may never have resigned, etc.

It might have been better for the rule of law if he had been convicted and removed forcibly, then subject to prosecution.

>Congress could have passed acts granting blanket pardons to all involved.

That's just a slightly different method of doing the same thing. I agree involving Congress in pardons would make sense.

>It might have been better for the rule of law if he had been convicted and removed forcibly, then subject to prosecution.

It would have also involved more chaos in an already chaotic time, is that better than him resigning? I guess we'll never know.

Congress granting pardons is different. It's limited in scope and has a higher bar, since it requires the assent of a majority of the legislative branch.

What's chaotic about punishing a lawbreaking president? Sounds pretty lawful to me. It's how healthy democracies are supposed to operate. Pardoning Nixon set a bad precedent.

It's not so limited in scope, Congress could pardon half the felonies in the law book. It's only limited because Congress does yet have the authority to pardon people already in bars (or does it? I could be wrong here), but that could be changed.

As for Nixon, not pardoning him would have led to some very messy politics (does he even quit?) in the middle of the oil crisis/price controls/etc. I have no idea how it would have played out, but the US needed at the time a functioning presidency (more than usual).

>> Now suppose the kid who shot the people in Kenosha gets a pardon

Offtopic, but for me that kid did nothing wrong - it was self defence. If he isn't found innocent by court then he definitely needs to be pardoned.

The federal check on improper use of pardons is impeachment. Of course, that's a huge hurdle.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com