Many U.S. presidents have issued pardons that the average American would look at and think, “Well, THAT’S a favor to a friend, an investor, or a relative,” or “That’s a quid pro quo if I ever saw one.” Someone needs to be able to issue pardons and commutations, but “who watches the watchmen?” Recent history wildly points to the need for judicial review of pardons and commutations in order to prevent the most obvious abuses of those powers. Balance in all things.

The Presidential Pardons Amendment

All Presidential commutations and pardons, except for stays of execution, must be reviewed by the Supreme Court, which must, deny such commutations and pardons having any appearance of favor, corruption or self-serving, and must otherwise approve. The President shall publicly provide reasons for each commutation or pardon, the public will have one month to file objections with the Supreme Court, on the basis of favor, corruption, or self-serving, and the Supreme Court shall have no more than two months thereafter to rule on its validity.

This attempts to provide guard rails without preventing the presidential pardon power from being crippled. There will always be disagreement about whether any given pardon is reasonable, reflects any sense of justice, or is morally ‘right.’ But there are some pardons that area clearly WRONG, because they serve the Presidents self-interests, are payback for some behavior, or are a favor for a friend, etc. These should not be available to ANYONE, without clear, unambiguous reasons with which a court agrees.

-Everett