George Washington is depicted in the 1856 painting"George Washington Addressing the Constitutional Convention" by Junius Brutus Stearns. By Erick Trickey April 21 at 7:00 AM Just before they left Philadelphia, the Constitution’s framers tackled a question that special counsel Robert S.
The president's power to pardon was a key part of the debate over the U.S. Constitution. When the Founding Fathers debated the Constitution, they contemplated the very concern Mueller examined: whether a president might abuse his pardon power to obstruct justice or protect himself from investigation. The Founders had a ready answer to that scenario: a president who uses his pardon power corruptly can be impeached.
So Randolph proposed an amendment to the president’s authority to “grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachments.” He moved to add, “except cases of treason.” Randolph feared a criminal president might pardon his co-conspirators. “The prerogative of pardon in these cases was too great a trust,” he argued.
After the convention, Mason took his concerns public and became an Anti-Federalist, an opponent of ratification. His Anti-Federalist paper, Objections to the Proposed Federal Constitution, written in October 1787, included his concerns about the pardon power. “In seasons of insurrection or rebellion, there are often critical moments, when a well-timed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquillity of the commonwealth,” Hamilton wrote. Waiting for Congress to convene and act “could let slip the golden opportunity.”
“The president ought not to have the power of pardoning, because he may frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself,” Mason warned. “If he has the power of granting pardons before indictment, or conviction, may he not stop inquiry and prevent detection? The case of treason ought, at least, to be excepted.”
Interesting timing, as usual. NO such thing as coincidence
You people denigrate the founding fathers on a daily basis. Your hatred for RealAmerica is palpable. Sooooo... stuff it
Question, what happens when the ex president is guilty? If we can't impeach, can we shoot.
Guilty of what
Trump’s “sinful matters” elongated more than his criminality.
Move on and groove on...it’s over let’s get back to helping America get greater ...
Has anyone ever recall a newspaper / media outlet clearly promoting a theme to have the President impeached especially when (like it or not, it is a fact) no crime was committed? (Collisuon and/or obstruction).
May....may...may. Now there is that word that plants possible guilt until the sunlight exposes and heals the disease that is known as the main stream media.
It shows forgiveness is powerful
Let's revisit the CRIMINALS that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama PARDONED for strictly POLITICAL REASONS. Once you try HONESTY instead of LIES & PROPAGANDA - you MIGHT gain some semblance of credibility.
What if Obama is guilty of a coup defat? Wait he is a private citizen.
Because of his guilt and the strength of his administration for hiding his sins— this being aiding and abbetting, there shouldn’t be their exonerations. Adding to the sinful matters is almost as bad as committing them, sometimes worst! They elongated the Criminal Crimes!
Trump must be held accountable for his corruption. He must be impeached. He will hide behind reelection to prevent indictment.
Broadway Hamilton must have had a huge impact.
The WASHINGTON COMPOST refuses to accept the findings of the Mueller report. Too bad Lefties.
It’s good to be president.
GAME OVER, FakeNews
The wp maybe fake news, journalism principles agrees
More horsesh*t from the Bezos Post.
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: WSJ - 🏆 98. / 63 Read more »