Presidential pardons have been abused by all sides for too long. Time to limit them | Opinion

The presidential pardon authority is being abused so much that, to preserve the rule of federal law, it must be substantially restricted.

The U.S. Constitution gives the president “power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” This allows presidents to correct injustices and show mercy as public attitudes and laws change over time.

However, Mark Rozell, a George Mason University expert on presidential power, recently stated, “It was perhaps a constitutional mistake to give the president this one unchecked, unilateral power. Madison believed that any power granted without institutional checks would be abused. The recent exercises of the pardon power by two presidents proves he was right.”

Presidential pardons have a long history of abuse. Here is a short list. A consistent theme is that they involve family, friends or political allies.

Pardons of the president’s former defense secretary convicted in a foreign corruption scandal, of an ally who had been indicted for fraud in connection with a nonprofit he set up to raise money for something the president and his supporters wanted, of disgraced allies and former members of Congress, of the father of the president’s son-in-law, who was convicted of tax evasion and retaliating against a federal witness, of an ally who combined contempt for the rule of law with punitive actions against some of the weakest members of our society, of the president’s son convicted of evading more than $1 million in taxes, of an ally indicted on charges of lying to Congress about what he and the president knew about foreign efforts to discredit the president’s campaign opponent, of an ally who was convicted of defrauding Medicare of $75 million, of hundreds of allies convicted of assaulting police officers and dozens convicted of seditious conspiracy in support of the president, of an ally who refused to testify about the president’s role in a scandal, of an ally convicted of bank and tax fraud and other crimes.

Presidential pardons were not intended to forgive crimes committed by the president’s family members, friends or political allies. But they have been, in some cases for crimes intended to benefit the president.

When that happens, the message is clear: All crimes by the president’s allies or benefiting the president are above the law. The law does not apply. All that matters is alignment with the president. This is a recipe for widespread corruption and lawlessness, for chaos and the breakdown of society.

One solution is to place constraints on pardons. There are well-recognized limits on its exercise: It only covers federal crimes. Congress can constrain pardons, such as making it clear that pardons cannot be given in exchange for bribes. But that would not have prevented any of the abuses cited.

If Congress could outlaw pardons for family members, friends or political allies, most of the abuses would be prevented. But it is hard to see how such a law would be ruled constitutional.

A complete ban on pardons would require a constitutional amendment. Given the difficulty of amending the Constitution, it’s worth considering an amendment that could prevent the above abuses while preserving its ability to correct injustice. Aside from a complete ban on pardons, what is worth saving?

“A pardon is an instance of mercy, of not giving the person the full extent of justice, but giving them less than society has said that they deserve,” said Everett Worthington, a psychologist and professor who has written five books on forgiveness.

For example, before she was pardoned, 63-year-old Alice Marie Johnson had spent almost 22 years in jail. She had been sentenced to life in prison for a first-time drug offense.

The mother of four had hit rock bottom: divorce, bankruptcy, loss of her house, her youngest son killed on a motorcycle. She was convicted to life + 25 years for conspiracy to sell cocaine and money laundering for serving as a ”telephone mule” who passed messages along. It was her first offense.

An absolute ban on pardons would eliminate the pardon as a remedy for what most would consider extreme sentences.

But one person’s injustice is another’s justice, particularly when the crimes involve actions motivated by politics. If justice is determined only by those in power, the nation is in great trouble. So, injustice is an inadequate discriminator between justified and corrupt pardons.

Instead, the Constitution should be amended to rule out pardons of family members, friends and political allies. That would go far toward preserving law and order in our nation.

Passing a constitutional amendment is difficult, but not impossible. An amendment has been submitted in Congress. It’s a long road to passage, requiring two-thirds majority in House and Senate as well as confirmation by three-fourths of states.

It will only happen if the public agrees that abuse is occurring by presidents from both parties, and the abuse is causing widespread disregard for our laws. We’re not there yet, but I’m planting a seed of concern. Help it grow by talking about it.