2026-11-01 20:29 UTC
Replies (6)
-
@DrBob@lemmy.ca 2026-11-01 20:44
The issue is not the pardon power. The issue is the other branches of government failing to act to restrain the President. The whole balance of powers works best when all parties act with integrity. If one of the beaches act in bad faith, the other branches must intervene to constrain the party and mitigate the damage. What has happened is that both Congress and the Judiciary are acquiescing to claims of executive power and we can all see the results.
-
@SabinStargem@lemmy.today 2026-11-02 04:26
I think part of the problem with pardon power is that it can be freely done. I think a president should nominate someone for pardoning, then congress critters have to give a 51% vote in favor of pardoning for it to take affect. 30 days have to pass during the nomination period for them to review the pardon, the pardon to be public knowledge, and congress critters having their name attached to their vote. Particular crimes should be noted for the pardoning, and a pardon doesn’t void new infractions of the same kind of crime. A second 30 day direct voting period then takes place to confirm the pardon. The general public sends in a vote, based on all voters who send in a ballot. By default in this stage, the pardon passes unless 51% of the ballots reject the pardon. To sum up: 1a: A president nominates a person for pardon for specific crimes at the time of the pardon. 1b: The nominated for pardoning must be considered a flight risk, and prevented from free international travel during the review stages. 2: After 30 days of review, 51% of congress must decide whether approve of the pardon, attaching their name to the vote. 3: Following the congressional voting period, direct voters from the public can send in ballots to cancel the pardon. 51% of voters who submit a ballot must agree to cancel the pardon.
-
@arak@lemmy.today 2026-11-02 02:28
People wouldn’t be so dumb to elect a corrupt president… Thanks to Republicans defunding education we have more than enough retards to vote for a conman, a well known one too.
-
@Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 2026-11-01 22:46
The constitution worked pretty well for some time, but that time is over. We’ve been overdue for a constitutional convention for a rewrite suitable today (not 1776) for decades, but now that “dollars are free speech” and “corporations are people”, that won’t be a legal option. Corporations don’t want a constitutional convention. Our politicians require “donations” to get reelected. To get those “donations” they do what their “donors” want. Their “donors” want them to cut taxes and wages. The voters by and large therefore have low wages, and can’t “donate” enough to influence. So the “donors” control all policy, and will until it collapses in on itself Pardons are the least of our worries Good luck getting them to throw out their “get out of jail free” card I’d love to be wrong, please let me be wrong
-
@anon_8675309@lemmy.world 2026-11-02 01:19
They expected people to conduct themselves as adults and not vote in a piece of shit.
-
@bunnybunny@lemmy.zip 2026-11-01 22:54
This is already a pretty old poster by van Kooten en de Bie. It says: If only the Indians had had a tougher immigration policy then America wouldn’t have been such a big mess right now.