Author: MDBROWN

Our Founding Fathers established checks and balances that seemed reasonable enough when they drafted our Constitution.  The need to limit the power of the President to pardon has become apparent.  The only fix is to amend the US Constitution.

Below is a proposed amendment that restricts pardons to extraordinary circumstances, prohibits any president from issuing a pardon for himself, or while the president is temporarily disabled, or in certain stated circumstances where abuse is likely:

JOINT RESOLUTION.  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding presidential pardons.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, two-thirds of each House concurring therein,

That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

ARTICLE I

SECTION 1.  The power of the President to pardon is intended for extraordinary circumstances of mercy for individuals and in the interest of  justice for the nation.  It is not intended for corrupt purposes to obstruct justice, obscure truth, or offend the Constitution.

SECTION 2.  No pardon may issue by the President for the President, or for any president temporarily disabled under Amendment XXV.

SECTION 3.  In the following circumstances, no pardon is effective, without the prior consent of the Senate, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur:

A)  The person to receive the pardon has any connection with the President that gives rise to the appearance of impropriety or undue self-interest, such as a family member or friend, or person who has supported or substantially and materially acted on behalf of the President or the President’s family or friend.

B) Before there is a judicial finding, that the person has committed the crime or action, which is the subject of the pardon.

C) The term of the presidency ends, for any reason, within sixty days of the pardon.

SECTION 4.  Any pardon may be rescinded upon vote of the Senate, after the pardon has been granted, with the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senators present.  To be effective, the Senate rescission must occur within 180 days after this amendment is ratified by the sufficient number of states or the pardon is issued, whichever event occurs later.

SECTION 5.  The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The purpose to the amendment is to make clear that the President may not issue their own pardon.  Also, the President may not abuse the constitutional power of Presidential pardon by inappropriately pardoning family, friends or those working on behalf of the president.

If there exists extraordinary circumstances where it is approrpriate to pardon of a friend, family or person working for the president, Senate approval is necessary in those situations.

Presidential pardons shall not thwart the due process of law, before a determination that a law has been violated.  For example, when President Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, he did so before there had been a judicial determination of what laws, if any, had been violated.  President Jimmy Carter pardoned those who illegally evaded the Vietnam Conflict , before many/most had been convicted.

Such pardons can obscure the truth and unnecessarily divide a nation.  However, in extraordinary situations, such pardons might be appropriate.  To protect against abuse, the Senate approval is necessary.

The process of amending the US Constitution is appropriately deliberate, but it can happen relatively quickly.  A recent amendment was completed, from start to finish, in just four months.  There is great value in starting the process, which can occur easily  with a Joint Resolution in Congress.  Starting the process helps drive the narrative and shows the Supreme Court how to rule, if any president abuses presidential pardon power before the amendment can be completed.  

This amendment can have retroactive effect, so that the Senate may rescind a pardon issued before the effective date of the pardon, so long as the rescission occurs within 180 days after the amendment is fully and finally effective by ratification by a sufficient number of states.

May God bless and protect America

Trump Cabinet & Team confirm their LOYALTY TO TRUMP and praise for ALL THINGS TRUMP in front of camera’s.  In case anyone was wondering…

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/12/politics/donald-trump-cabinet-meeting/index.html

Dateline Wash, DC:

Donald Trump leaked details of a confidential conversation between FBI Director James Comey and the President of the United States, where Comey allegedly acknowledged the FBI had no open investigation on the president’s personal involvement in the Russian attempt to interfere in the 2016 presidential campaign.

The disclosures were from a private one-on-one meeting between the president and Comey in the White House.

Trump made the unauthorized disclosure in a letter May 9th, from the president to Comey, which was leaked to media by Trump operatives.  The disclosure immediately went “viral” making headlines across the nation.

FBI Director Comey was caught completely by surprise, as he was addressing FBI officials on the opposite end of the country.  Comey had no comment in response to the bombshell dislosure.

In other news, the week following Trump’s unauthorized leak of the private communications, FBI Director Comey released to the media additional information from a detailed memorandum of private communications with president, made contemporaneously at the time of the communications.  The release to the media came through a trusted source close to Comey.

The white house, which had no objection to the earlier unauthorized disclosure by Trump, was inexplicably critical of the subsequent release of additional information by Comey about their communications, which provided a more complete context to the Trump disclosures made the previous week.

It ain’t what you know that gets you in trouble. It’s what you know for sure, that just ain’t so.    Mark Twain

Everyone was surprised by the election results.  This is good; not necessarily that Trump won, but good that we now know that pundits/pollsters don’t know.  We appreciate the value of thinking for ourselves.  Democracy works best when we think for ourselves. 

I hope pundits/pollsters learn humility with a better understanding that they don’t know, talk with less certainty, and maybe just talk less.  I hope folks pay less attention to them.  That would be a Good Lesson from this election. 

It’s OK if you do not know what’s going to happen.  It’s NOT OK to believe you know, when you don’t.  It’s especially troublesome when you know you know, when you really don’t.  No one knows everything. And there is little that we know for sure.  Pundits and pollsters don’t like that.  But, it’s hard to deny this Truth after this election.

A measure of doubt is healthy, especially with strong beliefs.  When we think we “know” for sure, we stop listening.   When we know we are right, we act like there’s nothing we can learn from listening to someone who is “wrong.”  Yet, we all think we are right, and this is the problem!

When we understand that we might be wrong – when we listen to others – that’s when we are most wise.  That is when others listen to us.

In a democracy, we get the government we deserve, French observer Alexis de Tocqueville, said centuries ago.  Is that true for this election?  Do we deserve Donald Trump?  Clinton received nearly three million more votes nationwide.  But, the Electoral College decided who won, state by state, and not by nationwide popular vote.  We are deeply divided over that, as we would be deeply divided if Clinton won by popular vote.  The Electoral College does not cause the division.  It merely reflects a nation divided.

Some folks want to junk the Electoral College.  But, all those states across the nation who voted for Trump– who would listen to them, if the nationwide popular vote decided the election?  What candidate would even visit the smaller states in the campaign?

The Founding Fathers feared the tyranny of the majority.  They wanted the best for democracy.  They believed in the Republic form of government for the United States, although they would hardly recognize the Republic today.  They set up checks and balances.  They did this in the way government operates and in the way we elect those who govern

Democracy is neither neat, pretty or predictable.  But, I cannot think of a better way to run a country.  I pray we embrace our diversity… our differences… even as we work for the common good.  We are a great nation when we seek the common good.  If we lose focus on the common good, we become less great.

The biggest problem revealed in this election is that the political parties are so polarized that neither is much interested in the common good.  They’re only interested in defeating their opponent.  Trump promised what the people wanted to hear; to bring change – to “drain the swamp.”  In the coming year, we will discover whether he delivers on the promise, and seeks the common good, or whether he defeated his opponents and seeks the spoils of victory, like the partisan politics of the past; where the federal government, no matter which party controls, tells us what they want, instead of seeking to know and do the will of we, the people.

One of the most important Life Skills anyone can learn is that we have a choice, and there are consequences to our choices.  We choose our consequences!  It is important to know the Truth about ourselves and the Consequences of our choices.