[kenrexford]

Wouldn't it be funny if Bush pardoned Obama right before leaving office, just in case Governorgate gets out of control? roflol

[luke warm]

jdonn, on Dec 10 2008, 02:28 PM, said:

Quote

Of course the presumption is that a president inclined to abuse the pardon power would never be elected in the first place.

And of course that completely contradicts the entire premise, as if that presumption were to hold we would not be in need of a system of checks and balances.

good point

[Winstonm]

From what I grasp, the pardon power checks the power of the courts, and impeachment is then supposed to be the check over the executive branch - but what happens when House Speaker Pelosi announces "impeachment is off the table"? Isn't that blatantly saying "we abigate our powers and responsiblities to be a check and balance"?

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Dec 10 2008, 08:06 PM, said:

From what I grasp, the pardon power checks the power of the courts, and impeachment is then supposed to be the check over the executive branch - but what happens when House Speaker Pelosi announces "impeachment is off the table"? Isn't that blatantly saying "we abigate our powers and responsiblities to be a check and balance"?

Of course it doesn't really matter since presidents seem to be in the habit of granting hundreds of pardons on the way out the door.

[helene_t]

jdonn, on Dec 10 2008, 08:28 PM, said:

So our system of checks and balances gives one person an absolute power that can in no way be challenged (meaning checked) or reversed (meaning balanced). Huh?

Yeah, I was wondering if Lynn was joking. This widespread belief in the infallibility of a particular individual (the Pope, Mohammad, Elvis Presley, Einstein, or the Inca King) is outright scary. It ought to be obvious that the weakest link in the government is the one which concentrates all power in a single person. It is easy to imagine that a corrupt, evil moron gets elected to president. It is less likely that hundred corrupt, evil morons get elected to parliament.

But there actually is a check on the U.S. president. Unlike European kings, he could in principle be dismissed if for example he has sex with a White House trainee.

[blackshoe]

There are (in theory) several checks on the power of the Presidency. It seems that in the late 20th and early 21st century, many Presidents have sought ways to circumvent them. Or maybe that's been going on since day one.