Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Who would support a congressional "veto" of presidential pardons?
As of current standards, the presidential pardon of criminals is absolute and gets no second opinion.
In my opinion this is to much power to give the president, and I'm not saying this solely because Bush is pardoning people right now
My question is who would support a law that gives congress the right to veto a presidential pardon with a 2/3 majority in favor of "vetoing" the presidents pardon?
well.. I don't support anything in retroactive, simply because it underminds the rule of law.
that is to say.. lets say drinking alcohol was put against the law again tomorrow, I think throwing people who have drank alcohol before that date into jail under the new law would be ridiculous.. Current law for current infractions..
or for example if something broke the law a few years back, and the law was repealed.. for example lets take... assassinating the president... its against the law now, but someone kills the president and the vice president makes it no longer against the law to assassinate the president, and thus lets the presidents assassin go free... retroactive laws are very dangerous.. and that power should never be given to government.
Well that depends on the interpretation of the U.S. constitution, paula. It says they have the power, and they still would, its just congress could over-ride them..
as per constitutional amendment.. well getting the states to agree with it could be very difficult indeed..
personally i see to much potential for special interest groups in presidential pardons.... that is people violate the law to get the president elected, get discovered after hes been elected, then get pardoned..
or people violate the law to help the president fund his campaign.. after hes elected.. they get pardoned...
Giving the president ultimate power over law when not concerning himself does not seem right to me.
5 Answers
- doncrisp99Lv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
The president and state governors are empowered by law to be able to pardon the criminals of their choice, and the law will never change because the national congress and states congresses like it that way. I'm sure you know why. We the people don't want them to have that authority because we send people to jail and we want them to stay there unless they are pardoned by due process of law in the courts.Therefore, I would not support the modification of the law to allow congress to veto presidential pardons. Instead I would support a total ban on pardons by the president and state governors.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
First, the right of a President to give "pardons" is in the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2 ("The President shall... have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment").
Therefore, any statute restricting this power would be unconstitutional.
Second, to change this would require Congress to adopt an Amendment and then 3/4 of the States would have to approve the Amendment.
Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans in Congress, nor in the States, would agree to do this, because they want to ensure that the presidents of their party will have this power.
Note - I am against changing this "power".
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Sure. let's do it. Would you support making that retroactive to Clinton's "Pardons for Sale" program of 2001?
- 1 decade ago
Certainly not Hillary - how else is she going to get her brother off the hook again?
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
i agree...whats to stop those convicts from re-doing what got them in prison to begin with
