The Presidential pardon power is in the news again and will be for some time expect. It seems to me that the pardon power, and the abuse of it, has been had bi-partisan complaints about it for as long as I can remember, but the difference is which side is abusing it and which side is complaining about it.
But I think most Americans agree that a president issuing pardons to family, friends and co-conspirators as they go out the door is unseemly, unjust and/or bad for the United States. I'm probably more opposed to it than most as I don't agree with the popular belief that pardoning Nixon was good (Without getting into it, I think it was bad) but still I'm surprised that I can't recall one time that a politician took a position in favor of pardon reform.
Still, I think we need it and here are the problems with the power as I see it. The power is too broad and as such invites abuse - and then, it's abused. And by abuse I mean when a president uses the power to protect family, friends or colleagues (or theoretically themselves); sometimes to protect themselves or their party. Also pardons at the end of term - especially on the last day - just seem dirty, like the President didn't want to have to defend them to the voters. Also, though it has never happened, some have suggested that a president can issue a pardon in secret, a "pocket pardon", that would only become known if needed. It's unclear if this would be legally valid, but we should make clear that it is not.
I get that pardon reform requires a Constitutional Amendment (or at least I think it would, the SCOTUS - who knows). Below is my stab at the Pardon Reform Amendment. Basically it gives the House the power to veto certain kinds of pardons. Why the House? Because the Senate already has the power to approve appointments and there's no need to give them more; and I worry that minority party Senators would try to clog up the confirmation process with veto review. Also the House is closer to the people, which is who the pardon power is really meant to serve. And finally, they will face election sooner and so have more reason to not be part of a cover-up.
I had considered a clause stating something to the effect of "acceptance of a pardon is an admission of guilt" but I didn't include that because some people might need a pardon who believe themselves to be innocent. A president is free to make a pardon conditional to an admission of guilt.
1. A pardon must be submitted by the President to the Speaker of the House.
2. No current or former President, Acting-President or Vice-President may receive a pardon without 2/3rds approval of the House.
3. No one who currently holds a presidentially-appointed office, or who has held one under the issuing president, may receive a pardon without 2/3rds approval of the House.
4. No President may issue a pardon to their spouse, children, siblings or parents or other close family members as defined by Congress, without 2/3rds approval of the House.
5. Pardons submitted to the Speaker in the last three months of a presidential term must be consented to by a majority of the House during that presidential term.
6. Any pardon issued by a president that was not approved by the House may be rescinded, by a 2/3rds vote of the House, for 2 years after it was issued.
