From: dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Proposed ban on Presidential pardon for own appointees
Date: 30 Dec 92 08:08:30 GMT
Organization: VTT


I have updated the proposed amendment in light of some of the advice
from the net as follows:

AMENDMENT ....
  I.
  Presidential pardons must specifically detail the criminal or civil
  charges for which the pardon is being granted, listing the person 
  charged, the specific statute or statutes which may have been violated,
  and the dates and times of the alleged violations.

  II.
  Presidential pardons do not apply to and may not be granted to members of 
  the following groups for crimes which may have been committed in 
  connection with duties as employees of the government of these United 
  States:

  1. A president's own appointees to federal government office;
  2. Anyone holding or who has held the office of Vice-President under 
     the person intending to grant the pardon;
  3. Appointees to federal government office by any person holding the 
     office of President under which the person intending to grant the
     pardon has served in the office of Vice-President;
  4. Any person previously holding the office of President under which 
     the person intending to grant the pardon has served in the office 
     of Vice-President;
  5. The issuer of the pardon.

  III.
  Federal and state courts have no authority to consider the existance of
  any pardon issued in violation of Sections I or II of this Article.

  IV.
  The issuance of any pardon in violation of Section II of this Article 
  is grounds for impeachment of any person holding the office of President 
  who issues such a pardon.  This Section has no bearing upon whether 
  any other specific offense is impeachable.

  V.
  This article shall not apply to any person who may hold the office of
  President or Vice-President either on the date that the Article is 
  submitted to the states for ratification or on the date upon which 
  ratification is complete.

  VI.
  [7 year restriction on ratification]


The wording is certainly open to modification and should be changed so
that it is more constitutional in form and so that there are no
unforseen loopholes.

Section I bans blanket pardons.  It does allow for pardons of people 
who have been charged with crimes but not yet convicted.  It also happens
to ban pardons of future activities (e.g. a James Bond style license to kill)
unless specific enough to warn appropriate authorities and prospective
victims of the intended crime.  Admittedly this is not the basic intent,
and is not very likely, but it comes for free.

Someone suggested that Section IV be expanded to define the violation of
Section I as treason.  I oppose this as treason is already defined in
the Constitution (the only crime so defined).  As Congress has the power
to legislate to enforce the Constitution, Congress may pass a *law*
detailing penalties for such a violation.

Section V. is in the Article, not because i don't wish the restrictions
to apply to Bill Clinton--i certainly do--but for fairness' sake.  Just
as the Presidential term limitation did not apply to HST, nor the term
limitations for presidents who ascended from the vice presidency apply
to LBJ, such a change in rules governing the presidency should not apply
to a sitting president.  I do not believe that a restriction to current
term of the sitting president is sufficient for the fairness issue.

doug foxvog     
dfo@tko.vtt.fi   
-- 
doug foxvog     
dfo@tko.vtt.fi   
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty