Monica Lewinsky penned on op-ed Monday calling for a series of constitutional amendments, including age limits for elected officials and a ban on presidential self-pardons. In a piece in Vanity Fai…
In a piece in Vanity Fair, Lewinsky offered her vision for a more robust democracy via six new amendments: no presidential self-pardons, mandatory background checks for presidents, no suspensions of the U.S. Constitution, a retirement age for elected officials, elimination of the Electoral College and codification of a woman’s right to an abortion.
There’s not a single thing wrong with anything she’s saying, except that she doesn’t go far enough. Well, also that part about suspension of the constitution I wonder what it means. If you suspend the constitution, then you’d presumably also not care about an amendment that says you cannot do so.
But anyways, for pardons, I would say that there should be a ban on any pardon where the President has a conflict of interests. For example, when Trump pardoned Stone. The President specifically shouldn’t be able to pardon anybody who he knows personally or who helped him personally.
There should be background checks for US presidents yes, but also for all congresspersons and Supreme Court Justices. All of their finances should be public information as a matter of course.
The Writ of Habeas Corpus doesn’t come from the Constitution, it is from common law. However, the Constitution does say “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” This both protects Habeas Corpus, and also allows for suspending it. It was controversial when Lincoln did it because he did so unilaterally as president, rather than Congress doing it, but the Constitution doesn’t actually say who can suspend it, or specify a procedure, so Lincoln’s act was within the Constitution.
Tldr: Suspending Habeas Corpus is controversial, but not the same as suspending the Constitution.
If it is important for a president to suspend habeus corpus, then that should be a power granted through the constitution, not through suspension of the constitution.
The thing is that, largely, government works because people all just kind of agree that it should. If a president says “I’m suspending the Constitution to deal with an emergency”, what happens next? We have a bunch of masked fascists, at high levels in government and in Washington think tanks, who would talk a lot about the unitary executive theory. It would be presented as a done deal, as if there was no question that it was legal. Who would step in to stop it? In the best case scenario, we would have a major constitutional crisis, that would eventually get worked out between the courts, the press, the public, and hopefully some courageous civil servants. In the worst case, it would straight up end our democracy. Somewhere in between lies civil war, and whatever that leads to. If suspension is explicitly forbidden, it gets a lot harder to defend, and makes the best case scenario a lot more likely.
I’m less sure about the value of background checks for presidents. I’m not sure some routine background check would unearth anything that the other side’s oppo-research wouldn’t. But hey, can’t hurt. I’m guessing the intelligence agencies are already digging up everything they can find; making that an official requirement and publicly reported before the election might be really beneficial, not only directly, but also to prevent rogue officials from keeping the dirt to themselves and using it against a sitting president.
There should be background checks for US presidents yes, but also for all congresspersons and Supreme Court Justices. All of their finances should be public information as a matter of course.
This would enable the government to make anyone they don’t like criminals to keep them out of office.
I didn’t suggest that it would keep them out of office, just that it would be released to the public. If that public information is enough to keep them out of office, then guess what? The government today already has the ability to do it. The biggest difference is that everybody would be subject to it.
Getting rid of the slavery-era EC would be excellent, that’s for sure. No way the cons will go for that; it’s the only reason they win any presidency since 1988 (W getting popular vote for second term was due to being a “war president” and an incumbent and even then, it was a squeaker - and he would not be in there in the first place if it wasn’t for the EC in 2000).
There would still be two parties. They would just both shift left until they were roughly equal again. We currently have a right party and a far-right party. One of the reasons Democrats are so ineffective is because they are trying to appeal to an incredibly wide swath of voters. They talk as if they are centrists, but their actions are conservative, and people on the left are left without representation. Eliminating the EC would shift Reps to the left to appeal to more voters, which would push Dems to the left to distinguish themselves, and the middle ground would actually be in the center again. That sounds like a big win to me.
The EC gives far too much power to a minority of people. It’s bad enough that in the Senate, a state with as many people as California gets the same representation as states with hardly anyone in it, but the EC also lets people in the hinterlands select our POTUS over the will of the majority of the people.
The people in the radicalized hinterlands are already able to send a rep to the House, even extremists like Marge and Bobo; that should be enough.
The EC is slave-state leftovers, it should go the way of slavery itself.
I think it was a mistake to do so, but I believe he should be able to.
If a President campaigned on marijuana reform and pardons, could they pardon folks for marijuana related crimes.
I am ok with having some restrictions, maybe a review board or clearly defined method for legal challenges, but I think generally ok with the pardon power being fairly broad.
As an example could Ford have pardoned Nixon? I think it was a mistake to do so, but I believe he should be able to.
Why would you believe that the President should be able to give a pardon to somebody like that? What’s the benefit to the American public?
If a President campaigned on marijuana reform and pardons, could they pardon folks for marijuana related crimes.
He doesn’t know those people. There is no personal conflict of interests.
I am ok with having some restrictions, maybe a review board or clearly defined method for legal challenges, but I think generally ok with the pardon power being fairly broad.
There already IS a review board. There already are clearly defined methods for legal challenges. And that has nothing to do with pardoning your buddies after they committed crimes, especially if they committed crimes FOR YOU. Trump and Nixon went against the usual process. Federal pardons are almost always only given out after a person has completed their sentence, and on recommendation of the board.
I think https://youtu.be/6uUzrvJtZps from Bob Woodward gives an interesting view, but I think Ford himself sums it up similarly when he said,
“My conscience tells me clearly and certainly that I cannot prolong the bad dreams that continue to reopen a chapter that is closed. My conscience tells me that only I, as President, have the constitutional power to firmly shut and seal this book”
Ford believed pardoning Nixon was the best way for the country to move forward. I disagree with that decision, however I think it’s the Presidents job to make that decision. It likely cost Ford the next election.
Everything you’ve said is evidence that Ford shouldn’t have had the power to pardon Nixon.
You have read the speech, and listened to Woodward, and know all of the ramifications, and you still say you disagree with his decision. This is the reason why we have processes, such as courts. There is absolutely no need for unilateral executive power in this situation.
And importantly, you didn’t answer my only question… How does this power benefit the American public?
Ford’s excuses were that he wanted to move forward. Why don’t we just move forward with murderers, as well? I’ll answer that. It’s because usually, we like to feel justice so that we can move forward. Nixon never truly faced justice.
Ford said that the economy would suffer. That was just his guess. We’ve had almost the same thing today with Trump, and the economy isn’t suffering. So, that means that Ford was probably just wrong about that excuse.
Ford said that he wanted to have his own Presidency, instead of being overshadowed by Nixon. That was never going to happen, no matter what he did. He became President without any general vote, voting him into either Presidency or Vice Presidency. He was President only because that was what Nixon wanted. But even if that hadn’t been the case, Presidents are judged by how they respond to problems. Waving your hand and pretending the problems away doesn’t help the American public.
These were all Ford’s excuses for why he did it. But they were bad excuses. There’s simply no benefit to America to allow Presidents to do this. I consider this matter closed. As you didn’t actually answer my question, I don’t see any point in continuing. Your last comment was your chance to answer my question, but instead you gave Ford’s answers, and said that you disagreed with them. I believe that was a silly choice. But what’s done is done.
Case closed? You certainly are under no obligation to respond but I am free to continue the conversation.
The benefit to the American people is that we have a complex process with regard to legal matters. We have decided that part of that process includes pardon powers. Each branch of the government has their powers.
The legislative branch creates a law. The executive blocks it. The legislative overrides the executive. The judicial declares it unconstitutional. The legislative amends the constitution. The judicial applies the law. The executive pardons. The legislative impeaches.
Each of these require political capital. If the American people support you, change happens. If they don’t, you get booted.
I’m aware it’s not all that simple.
The executive branch has taken on more power recently (20+ years), largely due to the legislative branch refusing to act. The judicial branch has had to make ultimately correct but legally challenging decisions, again due to the legislative braches refusal to act.
A President is tasked by the American people to perform certain duties as commander in chief. To act in the American people’s benefit. Certain powers, like pardon, are also granted.
States like Georgia don’t provide their executive branch the same privilege. Should a similar process be put in place at the federal level? Possibly. Georgians put it in place. Georgians thought so. The American people? It’s worth a discussion.
You don’t need to know someone to have a conflict of interest. A candidate running on the promise to pardon everybody for every crime if they vote for that candidate is a clear conflict of interest. Or pardoning somebody for payment.
I suppose the idea is that the justice system can still fail. Everyone can do the “right” thing but at the end of it all, it just doesn’t feel right. Another option might be to resolve issues with the justice system making the correct call at the time, but not one we agree with now.
Even though marijuana possession was a crime at one point, it’s silly now, so you get a pardon.
Now technically I doubt there are many folks with ONLY a federal simple marijuana possession charge and so this applies to very few people and it doesn’t absolve them from any other convictions. However I think as the President, Biden is setting guidance for the country. Governors should see this and then act similarly to pardon state crimes. Congress should see this and implement related laws.
Ostensibly there is a background check done on all of those it’s called the vetting process. But up until now it’s only been a voluntary process that virtually all presidents and most senators and congressmen go through.
To use the reverse term to that which Monica Lewinsky did, it took an luddite president like Trump to expose the weakness of not having laws that enforced those vetting processes.
Oh boy the classic “criminals dont obey the law!” Bullshit.
THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWSTHAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!!
Oh boy the classic “criminals dont obey the law!” Bullshit.
THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWSTHAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!!
There’s not a single thing wrong with anything she’s saying, except that she doesn’t go far enough. Well, also that part about suspension of the constitution I wonder what it means. If you suspend the constitution, then you’d presumably also not care about an amendment that says you cannot do so.
But anyways, for pardons, I would say that there should be a ban on any pardon where the President has a conflict of interests. For example, when Trump pardoned Stone. The President specifically shouldn’t be able to pardon anybody who he knows personally or who helped him personally.
There should be background checks for US presidents yes, but also for all congresspersons and Supreme Court Justices. All of their finances should be public information as a matter of course.
Suspension of the constitution meaning the president can’t say Habeus Corpus doesn’t apply during a state of crisis or some other similar example.
Lincoln did it, so did Wilson, Bush was too stupid to do it so Cheney got the Patriot act passed to do it for him.
The Writ of Habeas Corpus doesn’t come from the Constitution, it is from common law. However, the Constitution does say “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” This both protects Habeas Corpus, and also allows for suspending it. It was controversial when Lincoln did it because he did so unilaterally as president, rather than Congress doing it, but the Constitution doesn’t actually say who can suspend it, or specify a procedure, so Lincoln’s act was within the Constitution.
Tldr: Suspending Habeas Corpus is controversial, but not the same as suspending the Constitution.
If it is important for a president to suspend habeus corpus, then that should be a power granted through the constitution, not through suspension of the constitution.
The thing is that, largely, government works because people all just kind of agree that it should. If a president says “I’m suspending the Constitution to deal with an emergency”, what happens next? We have a bunch of masked fascists, at high levels in government and in Washington think tanks, who would talk a lot about the unitary executive theory. It would be presented as a done deal, as if there was no question that it was legal. Who would step in to stop it? In the best case scenario, we would have a major constitutional crisis, that would eventually get worked out between the courts, the press, the public, and hopefully some courageous civil servants. In the worst case, it would straight up end our democracy. Somewhere in between lies civil war, and whatever that leads to. If suspension is explicitly forbidden, it gets a lot harder to defend, and makes the best case scenario a lot more likely.
I’m less sure about the value of background checks for presidents. I’m not sure some routine background check would unearth anything that the other side’s oppo-research wouldn’t. But hey, can’t hurt. I’m guessing the intelligence agencies are already digging up everything they can find; making that an official requirement and publicly reported before the election might be really beneficial, not only directly, but also to prevent rogue officials from keeping the dirt to themselves and using it against a sitting president.
There is no way to make any of this work. Nobody should have any power. (edited)
It doesn’t look like Trump plans to discuss his way out of the constitutional crisis:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-mulling-deploying-military-to-streets-on-day-1-if-elected-report-says
This would enable the government to make anyone they don’t like criminals to keep them out of office.
I didn’t suggest that it would keep them out of office, just that it would be released to the public. If that public information is enough to keep them out of office, then guess what? The government today already has the ability to do it. The biggest difference is that everybody would be subject to it.
Do you have to have a clean record to run for president, or just to vote?
Natural born citizen, at least 35 years old, and lived in the US for at least 14 years. That’s the only requirements to be President.
Assuming that isn’t meant to exclude babies born by cesarean…
Getting rid of the slavery-era EC would be excellent, that’s for sure. No way the cons will go for that; it’s the only reason they win any presidency since 1988 (W getting popular vote for second term was due to being a “war president” and an incumbent and even then, it was a squeaker - and he would not be in there in the first place if it wasn’t for the EC in 2000).
deleted by creator
There would still be two parties. They would just both shift left until they were roughly equal again. We currently have a right party and a far-right party. One of the reasons Democrats are so ineffective is because they are trying to appeal to an incredibly wide swath of voters. They talk as if they are centrists, but their actions are conservative, and people on the left are left without representation. Eliminating the EC would shift Reps to the left to appeal to more voters, which would push Dems to the left to distinguish themselves, and the middle ground would actually be in the center again. That sounds like a big win to me.
The EC gives far too much power to a minority of people. It’s bad enough that in the Senate, a state with as many people as California gets the same representation as states with hardly anyone in it, but the EC also lets people in the hinterlands select our POTUS over the will of the majority of the people.
The people in the radicalized hinterlands are already able to send a rep to the House, even extremists like Marge and Bobo; that should be enough.
The EC is slave-state leftovers, it should go the way of slavery itself.
She’s just spitballing. Making policy isn’t her job, but at least she gave the conversation a nudge in the right direction
Oh, the joke writes itself.
Re conflicts of interest, how is that line drawn?
As an example could Ford have pardoned Nixon?
I think it was a mistake to do so, but I believe he should be able to.
If a President campaigned on marijuana reform and pardons, could they pardon folks for marijuana related crimes.
I am ok with having some restrictions, maybe a review board or clearly defined method for legal challenges, but I think generally ok with the pardon power being fairly broad.
Why would you believe that the President should be able to give a pardon to somebody like that? What’s the benefit to the American public?
He doesn’t know those people. There is no personal conflict of interests.
There already IS a review board. There already are clearly defined methods for legal challenges. And that has nothing to do with pardoning your buddies after they committed crimes, especially if they committed crimes FOR YOU. Trump and Nixon went against the usual process. Federal pardons are almost always only given out after a person has completed their sentence, and on recommendation of the board.
Re Ford pardoning Nixon,
I think https://youtu.be/6uUzrvJtZps from Bob Woodward gives an interesting view, but I think Ford himself sums it up similarly when he said,
“My conscience tells me clearly and certainly that I cannot prolong the bad dreams that continue to reopen a chapter that is closed. My conscience tells me that only I, as President, have the constitutional power to firmly shut and seal this book”
https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/speeches/740060.asp
Ford believed pardoning Nixon was the best way for the country to move forward. I disagree with that decision, however I think it’s the Presidents job to make that decision. It likely cost Ford the next election.
Everything you’ve said is evidence that Ford shouldn’t have had the power to pardon Nixon.
You have read the speech, and listened to Woodward, and know all of the ramifications, and you still say you disagree with his decision. This is the reason why we have processes, such as courts. There is absolutely no need for unilateral executive power in this situation.
And importantly, you didn’t answer my only question… How does this power benefit the American public?
Ford’s excuses were that he wanted to move forward. Why don’t we just move forward with murderers, as well? I’ll answer that. It’s because usually, we like to feel justice so that we can move forward. Nixon never truly faced justice.
Ford said that the economy would suffer. That was just his guess. We’ve had almost the same thing today with Trump, and the economy isn’t suffering. So, that means that Ford was probably just wrong about that excuse.
Ford said that he wanted to have his own Presidency, instead of being overshadowed by Nixon. That was never going to happen, no matter what he did. He became President without any general vote, voting him into either Presidency or Vice Presidency. He was President only because that was what Nixon wanted. But even if that hadn’t been the case, Presidents are judged by how they respond to problems. Waving your hand and pretending the problems away doesn’t help the American public.
These were all Ford’s excuses for why he did it. But they were bad excuses. There’s simply no benefit to America to allow Presidents to do this. I consider this matter closed. As you didn’t actually answer my question, I don’t see any point in continuing. Your last comment was your chance to answer my question, but instead you gave Ford’s answers, and said that you disagreed with them. I believe that was a silly choice. But what’s done is done.
Case closed? You certainly are under no obligation to respond but I am free to continue the conversation.
The benefit to the American people is that we have a complex process with regard to legal matters. We have decided that part of that process includes pardon powers. Each branch of the government has their powers.
The legislative branch creates a law. The executive blocks it. The legislative overrides the executive. The judicial declares it unconstitutional. The legislative amends the constitution. The judicial applies the law. The executive pardons. The legislative impeaches.
Each of these require political capital. If the American people support you, change happens. If they don’t, you get booted.
I’m aware it’s not all that simple.
The executive branch has taken on more power recently (20+ years), largely due to the legislative branch refusing to act. The judicial branch has had to make ultimately correct but legally challenging decisions, again due to the legislative braches refusal to act.
A President is tasked by the American people to perform certain duties as commander in chief. To act in the American people’s benefit. Certain powers, like pardon, are also granted.
States like Georgia don’t provide their executive branch the same privilege. Should a similar process be put in place at the federal level? Possibly. Georgians put it in place. Georgians thought so. The American people? It’s worth a discussion.
You don’t need to know someone to have a conflict of interest. A candidate running on the promise to pardon everybody for every crime if they vote for that candidate is a clear conflict of interest. Or pardoning somebody for payment.
As an outsider… why are presidential pardons even a thing in the first place? Why meddle with the justice system like that
I suppose the idea is that the justice system can still fail. Everyone can do the “right” thing but at the end of it all, it just doesn’t feel right. Another option might be to resolve issues with the justice system making the correct call at the time, but not one we agree with now.
For example, Presidential Proclamation on Marijuana Possession, Biden declared that if you have a simple marijuana possession offense, you’re pardoned.
Even though marijuana possession was a crime at one point, it’s silly now, so you get a pardon.
Now technically I doubt there are many folks with ONLY a federal simple marijuana possession charge and so this applies to very few people and it doesn’t absolve them from any other convictions. However I think as the President, Biden is setting guidance for the country. Governors should see this and then act similarly to pardon state crimes. Congress should see this and implement related laws.
Ostensibly there is a background check done on all of those it’s called the vetting process. But up until now it’s only been a voluntary process that virtually all presidents and most senators and congressmen go through.
To use the reverse term to that which Monica Lewinsky did, it took an luddite president like Trump to expose the weakness of not having laws that enforced those vetting processes.
The bit you quoted said no constitutional suspensions
That’s the point, it kinda doesn’t matter. If someone is trying to suspend the Constitution, an amendment saying not to isn’t going to stop them.
Oh boy the classic “criminals dont obey the law!” Bullshit.
THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWSTHAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!!
Oh boy the classic “criminals dont obey the law!” Bullshit.
THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWSTHAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!!
I think the point is that if they’re gonna suspend the constitution then they don’t really care what it says.
However, others will care and it’s less likely they’ll go along with it.