HR 1218: Reforming Presidential Pardons Amendment (Tabled)

[Associate Justice PiT]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People's Regional Senate:
Passed 3-0-1 in the Atlasian Senate assembled

[/quote]

Sponsor: Leinad

     I hereby open the floor for debate.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This needs to be amended to reflect the soon to be passed Constitutional Explanation Resolution in the Senate, which will make the House rules portion thereof become effective.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Why was the bold removed in the final text in the Senate?

If the underlying text, amends an existing text (legislation or constitution), the bold serves to indicate what is being changed.

Now if the underlying text is being amended during debate and bold represents a change relative to the underlying text, then yes it would be removed in the final text.

[Leinad]

I'll sponsor this.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Representatives have 24 hours to object to Representative Leinad assuming sponsorship.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     With no objections, Representative Leinad is now the sponsor. I invite the Representative to make a brief statement in favor of the piece.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Why was the bold removed in the final text in the Senate?

If the underlying text, amends an existing text (legislation or constitution), the bold serves to indicate what is being changed.

Now if the underlying text is being amended during debate and bold represents a change relative to the underlying text, then yes it would be removed in the final text.

     Do you want to propose an amendment towards this end? The debate suddenly died down on this thread, but there is still much to do.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

As I did when it was before the Senate, so I urge the House to deny this measure their assent. The proposal constitutes an unwise blurring of the separation of powers by making the exercise of executive powers dependent on the permission of the legislative branch, effectively transferring the pardon power from the president to Congress. While some may not see the problem with this, the pardon is by nature an executive power, and an important check on the power of Congress and the Courts: this is what John Locke called the Prerogative Power, and it is an essential component of liberal constitutional theory. To quote directly,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Simply put, the role of the executive is to decide how best to carry out the law—and that includes the right to decide when it may be necessary to make an exception, in the form of a pardon. This simply is not the role of Congress, whose constitutional purpose is to make laws, not carry them out.

The erosion of the executive is by no means a good thing, either for the Constitution or for the game; already Congress is far more powerful than it's real-life counterpart, and while I am by no means an imperialist, one cannot achieve balance by swinging from one extreme (the so-called "imperial presidency") to the opposite (a system where the executive is a puppet of the legislature). The pardon power is an important check on the legislative and judicial branches and must remain firmly in the hands of the executive.

I would also point out that the Constitution already provides for the revocation of executive pardons by a suitable majority of Congress, so it is not as if this executive prerogative is without limits under the status quo.

[Sestak]

Agree with the above.

[Pericles]

I respectfully disagree with Truman on this issue. The executive and legislature are still separate branches of government from the judiciary. And the legislature already holds the executive to account in a similar manner with cabinet confirmations-is this an unnecessary impediment on the executive, or needed accountability to the legislature? It has to be the latter. This would not result in a powerless executive, or it being the 'puppet of the legislature'. Rather, it prevents the executive abusing its power by using the pardon power for corrupt or partisan reasons. Abuses by the judiciary can still be checked, but this ensures the check is moderate and reasoned, rather than being an abuse of power by the executive, or any branch. And it is best not to rely on the legislature having to go out of its way to act, as is the status quo-the legislature can't even pass a budget, when instead we can have a reasonable system in place to check abuses by either the judiciary or executive and instead have balance between the branches of government. This change is beneficial and should be passed by the House. Currently, I don't believe there's sufficient evidence to disprove this or to see the change as harmful.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

And it is best not to rely on the legislature having to go out of its way to act, as is the status quo-the legislature can't even pass a budget,

There is nothing procedural stopping the legislature from passing a budget. There is merely the interest level and desire on the part of the membership of that branch to put it together and see it through. Which is why I created the BPC, because however slow it might be (again same reason as the former), as least there is a process that is being advanced and eventually, it will reach conclusion.

Of course I fully expect the process stipulated in the Act to get bungled once it reaches the Congress.

[Pericles]

And it is best not to rely on the legislature having to go out of its way to act, as is the status quo-the legislature can't even pass a budget,

There is nothing procedural stopping the legislature from passing a budget. There is merely the interest level and desire on the part of the membership of that branch to put it together and see it through. Which is why I created the BPC, because however slow it might be (again same reason as the former), as least there is a process that is being advanced and eventually, it will reach conclusion.

Of course I fully expect the process stipulated in the Act to get bungled once it reaches the Congress.

The point is there's nothing procedural forcing the legislature to pass a budget, and so that's why it isn't being done. As the legislature holding the executive to account on its use of the pardon power isn't a required task, it is less likely to exercise that power than if the legislature had to do so. The precedent of the cabinet confirmation process applies here, as if the executive appointed cabinet nominees and the legislature didn't have to judge them but could decide to take the time to reject them, then we'd have a less robust confirmation process than what we have now.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

And it is best not to rely on the legislature having to go out of its way to act, as is the status quo-the legislature can't even pass a budget,

There is nothing procedural stopping the legislature from passing a budget. There is merely the interest level and desire on the part of the membership of that branch to put it together and see it through. Which is why I created the BPC, because however slow it might be (again same reason as the former), as least there is a process that is being advanced and eventually, it will reach conclusion.

Of course I fully expect the process stipulated in the Act to get bungled once it reaches the Congress.

The point is there's nothing procedural forcing the legislature to pass a budget, and so that's why it isn't being done.

Actually, we did have a procedural requirement for completion by October 30th. It didn't induce any of the members to come rushing to my aid back in October as I painfully compiled all the expenditures into the template. I think PiT did lend a hand so kudos to him. Still we managed to have all the expenditures listed and we were waiting for the GM to give us the revenue projections by the set the deadline. Three things happened in succession

1. Encke and then AZ resigned as the GM team.
2. December - February was basically a living hell for me in RL
3. Scott left the Senate and it was March by the time the Senate filled the vacancy.

A procedural deadline is no substitute for "active interest".

[NeverAgain]

TO BE CLEAR - THESE ARE THE ADDITIONS TO THE CONSTITUTION THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED (someone please correct me if I am wrong).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am with Truman on this one. The Presidential Pardon is a powerful responsibility, but it must remain a Presidential one. This would open give more power to an already powerful branch of Congress. If not for the reason of simplicity, Congress may already repeal a pardon with 2/3rds majority, I see no reason to lower that standard to a majority and then DOUBLE the amount of times the Senate can vote on it.

Furthermore, I am confused on proposed inability to pardon "oneself" addition to this. What is meant by oneself. Both that "oneself" as the role of President/former Presidents (Ford-Nixon), or just the mirror-reflection of "YOURself." If someone could clarify that'd be great, because I see it argued in both ways.

[Associate Justice PiT]

This needs to be amended to reflect the soon to be passed Constitutional Explanation Resolution in the Senate, which will make the House rules portion thereof become effective.

     This law has now been passed, so any amendments proposed should consider an Amendment Explanation.

[Leinad]

Although I sponsored this, I don't really support it. My sponsoring of it was because I think bills we get should be examined by the Chamber (it would be kinda pathetic if a bill the Senate passes dies because we can't find a sponsor) and, uh...I was asked to

My thoughts on it are basically Truman's, especially summed up in this quote:

far preferable to abolish the pardon outright than to subject it to legislative confirmation (I'm not at all comfortable with the legislature deciding who should be excused for breaking their laws)

For context, I was one of the people who pressed for the idea to give a Congressional check to it. The idea I had (not saying it was my idea, just saying I'm speaking only for what my own intentions were ) was that Congress can only revoke a pardon with supermajorities, so that it would only happen if it's a broad consensus that the President overstepped the proper bounds of the mechanism, and not just a simple majority axing a pardon for political reasons.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Since the question is raised, the explanation has to include all the changes that the underlying resolution will make to the Constitution if ratified by the Regions. It isn't to explain away amendments to the underlying text (which would mean nothing to a voter in the voting booth), think capital A Amendments instead of small case a amendments if that makes more sense


Basically if a voter goes into a voting booth, the explanation should explain every thing that their voting aye will cause to happen to the constitution.

The original bill to institute this "explanation" process (which I heavily altered myself) was introduced by Cinyc when he was Senator. It was a long standing complaint of his that he often would end up voting on amendments that were confusing and left many people casting uninformed votes. Since this is the constitution at stake, it is a pretty "big fing deal" to quote Joe Biden. It is also a matter of transparency.

[Sirius_]

All this really seems to do to me is strip yet another power of the executive and hand it to the legislature, which is a problem regarding separation of powers. Not only does this cause an imbalance in power but it would bog down congress and the pardon process. At the moment I have to oppose this resolution.

[Sestak]

I move to table this as well.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Tune in next week to see Leinad and Sestak duke it out for the title of "Kill Bill".

[Lumine]

As some noted already it is true that we have increased oversight when it comes to the idea of the presidential pardon. Myself I'm not convinced that is enough, certainly not when a partisan-motivated pardon can still be enacted with a supportive Congress. And the reason why I consider this a potential problem in the future is because issues have arised with pardons in the past, particularly during 2014 and the Civil Conflict in which one of our former Presidents had to be banned.

I don't think it's harmful in the least to make the pardon power, which in my opinion is already a rather dangerous one in terms of how it enables the Executive to meddle with the decisions of the Judiciary (which certainly should be the most independent of the main powers), more limited and subject to oversight from the Legislative. I also don't believe it is an attack on the Executive meant to drastically weaken it, or at the very least that is certainly not my intention.

I also believe it is important to avoid the potential of a President pardoning himself (or herself, hence the "oneself") and potentially getting away with it, and I do think measures such as this do help in that objective.

[Sirius_]

I move to table this as well.

I second the motion.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

I'm not big on tabling stuff but I won't oppose it this time even though it feels a little rushed even though debate is still ongoing, I guess....

I oppose this amendment.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     A vote is now open on the motion to table this Amendment. Representatives have 48 hours to vote aye, nay, or abstain.