9 Comments

Sounds great. You might want to google US Constitution Article 2 Section 2. I don’t think Congress can do anything of he sort without an amendment.

Expand full comment

You should probably read the piece before commenting!

Expand full comment

Pretty much summarizes it, albeit in the negative.

I’m philosophically opposed to the “hey, we might get away with it” style of legal argument, but put that aside. What can be done by Congress can be undone by Congress and the next time there’s an unpopular president there’ll be another fudge. At some point, we have to remember the Lesson of Robespierre: If it can be done for you, it can be done to you. I doubt very much that such a law would be passed — even Senators can see risks that might upset their apple cart — and I doubt _very_ much that any Supreme Court would acquiesce.

Then there’s that “rogue president” line, which is semantically equivalent to “Waaah I don’t like it!” I defy you to name a president who _someone_ didn’t think “rogue”. FDR — did court packing qualify? Japanese internment? Half a dozen other things? Andrew Jackson and the Removal? John Adam’s and the Alien and Sedition Acts?

The remedy for a rogue president is elections and in extremis impeachment.

Don’t piddle in the Constitution out of pique.

Expand full comment

Clinton. Illegal unilateral war on Serbia, to build an oil pipeline no less.

Bush. Illegal unilateral war on Iraq destabilizing the entire Middle East, creating ISIS and affecting every Western country.

20+ years later, nobody cares about these illegal, illicit acts.

The Left has forgotten that "If it can be done for you, it can be done to you."

They've become the party of the shortsighted. Great reply and I fully agree.

Expand full comment

I’m sorry I was subtle. I was actually saying “I don’t buy it,”

Expand full comment

How does your take on a Constitutional amendment being required, reflect the limited scope of the reforms being proposed here?

"Both reforms could, in theory, be struck down by the Supreme Court’s conservative majority applying Trump v. U.S. But because these reforms would not actually restrict presidents’ ability to pardon—instead just making the reasons for pardons and the identities of those who lobby for pardons susceptible to public scrutiny—they should pass constitutional muster."

Expand full comment

That the argument is constitutionally insufficient. That’s the point.

Expand full comment

"Subtle" doesn't mean what you think it means.

Expand full comment

I sorry I was subtle. Again.

Expand full comment