Discussion about this post

User's avatar
John Ullmann's avatar

Use of discretionary “rights” like pardon power and observance of restrictions against nepotism rely upon the inherent sense of shame in all of us. But Trump has no sense of shame. He fights it if it ever even arises in his sensibility. Trump is galling and subversive to our system of governance because he is a malignant narcissist and a deviant delinquent. The kindest thing one can say about him is that he will soon exceed his “use by” date and he will blessedly “shuffle off this mortal coil.”

Expand full comment
Fred Jonas's avatar

There are many posts that could be entitled "If you can keep it." Generally, the issue isn't that we couldn't keep it, but that enough of us didn't want to keep it. "All men are created equal?" Half the country seceded in the middle of the 19th C because they didn't want all men to be equal. And it took many decades after that for women to be considered even somewhat equal to men. Even in this post, Ms Wehle points out that with surprisingly little discussion, there was an agreement to preserve an important right of monarchs.

I was curious about a few things. Nixon was "pardoned." But he hadn't been convicted of anything. Maybe it was Ford's understanding or assumption that Congress wasn't done with Nixon yet, even though he resigned, but still, pardon him for what? It's sort of like Wehle's noted exception that there can't be a pardon for a crime that hasn't been committed. Nixon didn't say he committed a crime. He wasn't convicted of having committed one.

Another is the issue of a president pardoning him- or herself. This seems to be an unnecessary mechanism. In the case, for example, of Trump and Vance, if they won, why wouldn't Trump simply pass the gavel for a few seconds, so Vance could pardon him, which Vance has clearly implied he would do? Unless Trump chose Vance because is no more honest than is Trump, and therefore can't be believed.

It was also unclear to me why a president couldn't assassinate a competitor, but the military could do it for him or her. The result, and the reasoning, are precisely the same. I live in Florida, where residents are essentially encouraged to "stand [their] ground." If someone's argument is that an assassination is intended to protect the public, or an individual, or the president, what difference does it make who carries out the assassination?

Expand full comment
2 more comments...

No posts