Constitutional Amendment Limiting Pardon Power Could Be Big Winner
A lot has been said over the past few weeks over President Bush's handling of the Scooter Libby case. Amongst the rhetoric was an exchange between the Clinton camp and the White House where charges of "being above the law" were met with new definitions of "chutzbah" by the respective foes.
And we were all certainly entertained.
But President Bush's actions have seemed to do far worse damage than anything that involved Mark Rich. As seemingly corrupt as that move was, and make no mistake about it, even the most die-hard Clinton supporters have to cringe when they think about what was prbably the worst thing that President Clinton ever did, the Libby cummutation was worse.
This for many more Americans was if not "the straw" that broke the camel's back, certainly one of them. The move solidified their reputation as acting as if they are simply superior to any law, any legislature, any court or anyone. And that's both here and abroad. At a time we are supposed to be "spreading democracy" and the virtues of a society that lives by "the rule of law."
They have put forth the most obscure and reaching arguments for holding their precious secrecy and non-accountability. They have ignored whomever they pleased to further their agenda. They've tortured the Geneva Convention in order to justify the torture of whomever they choose, no matter how reckless they are and how many innocent people suffer. A Vice-President that wants to conveniently vault from one branch of government to another when he is to be held accountable for anything forcing everyone else to play "whack-a-mole" with him and his cronies. And a President who simply excludes himself from much of the legislation he signs with an additional stroke of his pen.
It's gotten to the point where impeachment talk is no longer just coming from the fringe Left of the Democratic party, but even from the right. Former NSA director under Ronald Reagan, William Odom.
In an article published on Nieman Watchdog back in 2005, part of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University. Odom looks at all of the fears of "stay the coursers," e.g., civil war, loss of U.S. credibility, emboldening the insurgency and undermining democracy, causing Iraq to be a haven for terrorists, increasing the influence of Iran, spreading unrest in the region, clashes between Sunni and Shiite groups, needing to train Iraq military and police and causing the morale of U.S. troops to suffer. To each concern Odom concludes... it is already happening and will be made worse if we stay in Iraq. He describes a need to "to unmask the absurdity of the administration's case."
Odom has also now called on Congress to either use it's power of the purse once and for all, to reign in this out of control Administration. And if that doesn't work, look towards impeachment. He says....
*Redefine what "supporting the troops" means.
*Flatly refuse to appropriate war funds "for anything but withdrawal operations with a clear deadline for completion."
*If that doesn’t work, Congress should impeach the President for "the ‘high crime’ of squandering the lives of soldiers and Marines for his own personal interest."
But impeachment is highly unlikely, considering the odds are more in favor of the administration to be able to "run out the clock" and dump all it's failures on the next administration.
And despite the failures of this administration, the Democrats want one of their guys (or gal) to be in there to clean the mess up. And they might not have to go as far as to impeach either the Vice President or President to do it.
What the Democrats should do is propose a Constitutional Amendment. One that strips the President of any pardon / commutation power for himself, any member of their administration or any political apointee of theirs. The President of the next administration would still have the power to pardon previous administration officials, as Ford did with Nixon.
No one has ever resolved the question of whether a President can pardom themselves. Most scholars belive that it would violate the spirit, but not the letter of the law. For one thing, this ammendment would clarify that question.
This ammendment would put to rest what most Constitutional debates are clear about. That the power of pardon was not seen as a weapon for the president to wield in interbranch disputes. It was intended to bring mercy in specific cases in which the law created an injustice when correctly applied, or to provide national healing when the application of the law is working against domestic tranquility.
And unlike an impeachment process, an amendment can be done in a relatively short period of time. For example, the right for 18 year olds to vote was passed in a matter of a few months, as an energized nation immediately saw the injustice of kids being sent to die without the right of voting extended to them.
And as each day passes, more and more Americans are uniting behind the idea that this President and Vice President think they are beyond any law and that is just wrong in the worst way. And it really doesn't matter where their political persuasions are otherwise. It's easy to see how mad one could become if "the shoe was on the other foot." And most Americans realize that the proverbial shoe will switch feet many times in their lifetime. And that no one, not even the President, is above the law. And no good American wants to see any power, especially Constittional power abused by anyone.
And if the Democrats propose such an amendment, they get one of two things. They either get an Amendment to campaign on, a strong showing of "standing up for the average American" that will be hard to argue with or they get an issue to beat over the Republicans head from Hawaii to Maine. Democrats should propose an amendment limiting the pardon power and simply dare Republicans in Congress to go into the elections on behalf of Bush’s right to break the law.
And I have a feeling this administration is going to be dealing with investigations long after January of 2009. And the next President might eventually be asked to consider pardons for this administration. And this Constitutional amendment might help solidify a democrat being in the position to make that decision.
The only thing that might throw a wrench into that plan is if a republican legislator beats them to the punch.