Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Abused pardon power: One of the bigger problems Trump's leaving behind

Roger Stone

If you're a Trump crony, like Roger Stone, crimes are not really crimes, writes Marcuss.

Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images
Marcuss, a retired partner at the law firm Bryan Cave and a former senior fellow at Harvard's Kennedy School, is on the steering committee of Lawyers Defending American Democracy.

The president's pardon power is thought by many to be virtually unlimited. As he heads out the door, President Trump's pardoning of criminals who lack remorse and cronies who lack conscience challenges us to reexamine that belief.

The unadorned words of the Constitution seem to place no limits on the pardon power except in the case of impeachment. But skeptics may be forgiven for asking why the Constitution should permit pardons for murderers, thieves, tax-cheats, fraudsters and secret foreign agents — or those who have obstructed justice, lied to the FBI, abused immigrants, used campaign and corporate cash for improper purposes, disguised personal expenditures as charitable contributions and used prostitutes to entrap enemies.

Pardons like these undermine the entire criminal justice system. If you're a Trump crony or someone who obstructed justice to protect him, crimes are not really crimes. They are a sordid badge of honor.

There are two systems of justice in this country, one for the rich and well-connected and the other for everyone else. Trump's pardons create two more categories, one for those in the president's favor and another for those who are not. Criminals in the president's favor go free. The rest end up in jail. There is little wonder why cynicism runs rampant.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Cynicism will be one of the lasting legacies in Trump's parade of horrors. And it pervades much more than the administration of justice.

Consider: Use of the White House to enrich the president and his family, use of the Justice Department to protect the president personally and punish the president's enemies, interference with congressional oversight responsibilities by withholding information or prohibiting witnesses from testifying.

Consider also retaliation against whistleblowers, governing by executive order instead of congressional enactment, trashing international agreements, encouraging violence, failing to protect the public from a health crisis for fear of hurting the stock market — and, at the end, throwing the country into turmoil by falsely challenging the legitimacy of presidential elections.

We used to think it cannot happen here. Well, it has been happening here, and the country must do something about it. We cannot afford simply to hope that another Trump will not reappear in the Oval Office. Human nature has not changed. Greed, the seduction of power, and lack of moral principle lurk in the shadows, ready always to pounce. Future Trumps may be more skilled than the original in stealing democracy.

Tackling the unfettered exercise of the pardon power should be among the first orders of business in the new Biden administration. The Constitution must not be allowed to become a death warrant when politicians behave as if it contained no constraints.

The pardon power has been used by President Trump to create a class of citizens who are above the law. It has been bad enough when Trump issued a pardon after a conviction or guilty plea. It has been even worse when he has telegraphed in advance that pardons for future illegal behavior are likely. That is nothing more than a license to ignore the law. And when a president pardons those who commit crimes in service of his interests, he licenses his own wrongdoing as well.

Richard Nixon one haughtily proclaimed that "when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." Trump once said that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, and no one would stop him. A president who wields the pardon to shield his own criminality would be out-Nixoning Nixon.

The fact that the Constitution appears to place few restrictions on the exercise of the pardon power should not be an insuperable obstacle to reform. Many matters on which the Constitution is silent are dealt with through legislation to fill in gaps or reconcile conflicting provisions.

Among the many examples are constraints imposed by legislation on the use of firearms despite the absence of constraining words in the Second Amendment. Another is the permission enshrined in law to sue for libel or provide government support for religious-run schools despite the absence of constraining words in the First Amendment.

It is hard to imagine any good argument for permitting pardons as personal or political favors or to cover up a president's wrongdoing. It is equally hard to imagine a good argument against constraining the pardon power to cases of recognized injustice or situations of compelling mercy.

Some say that there are difficulties under the Constitution in trying to restrict the president's pardon power or defining when pardons are appropriate. Some also say there are difficulties in tackling other presidential abuses of power.

But difficult issues are difficult because of their importance. A hope that the depredations of the Trump administration will disappear when Trump is out of the Oval Office is naïve. Abuses of presidential power have been accumulating for decades. Reform of the pardon power is an essential starting point despite the challenges because the corrupt forgiveness of criminality is the rot that will eventually destroy the Constitution itself and render other reforms irrelevant.

In Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice," Portia instructs that "the quality of mercy is not strained" and that mercy blesses the giver as well as the receiver. A corrupt pardon dressed in robes of phony mercy blesses neither. It diminishes both giver and receiver and threatens the rule of law that is the bedrock of American democracy.

Read More

Project 2025: The Department of Labor

Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a right-wing blueprint for Donald Trump’s return to the White House, is an ambitious manifesto to redesign the federal government and its many administrative agencies to support and sustain neo-conservative dominance for the next decade. One of the agencies in its crosshairs is the Department of Labor, as well as its affiliated agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Project 2025 proposes a remake of the Department of Labor in order to roll back decades of labor laws and rights amidst a nostalgic “back to the future” framing based on race, gender, religion and anti-abortion sentiment. But oddly, tucked into the corners of the document are some real nuggets of innovative and progressive thinking that propose certain labor rights which even many liberals have never dared to propose.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less
Preamble to the U.S. Constitution
mscornelius/Getty Images

We can’t amend 'We the People' but 'we' do need a constitutional reboot

LaRue writes at Structure Matters. He is former deputy director of the Eisenhower Institute and of the American Society of International Law.

The following article was accepted for publication prior to the attempted assassination attempt of Donald Trump. Both the author and the editors determined no changes were necessary.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beau Breslin on C-SPAN
C-CSPAN screenshot

Project 2025: A C-SPAN interview

Beau Breslin, a regular contributor to The Fulcrum, was recently interviewed on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” about Project 2025.

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.” He writes “A Republic, if we can keep it,” a Fulcrum series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.”

Keep ReadingShow less
People protesting laws against homelessness

People protest outside the Supreme Court as the justices prepared to hear Grants Pass v. Johnson on April 22.

Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images

High court upholds law criminalizing homelessness, making things worse

Herring is an assistant professor of sociology at UCLA, co-author of an amicus brief in Johnson v. Grants Pass and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.

In late June, the Supreme Court decided in the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass that the government can criminalize homelessness. In the court’s 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, the conservative justices ruled that bans on sleeping in public when there are no shelter beds available do not violate the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

This ruling will only make homelessness worse. It may also propel U.S. localities into a “race to the bottom” in passing increasingly punitive policies aimed at locking up or banishing the unhoused.

Keep ReadingShow less
Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Republican House members hold a press event to highlight the introduction in 2023.

Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Biffle is a podcast host and contributor at BillTrack50.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a second Trump administration, includes an outline for a Parents' Bill of Rights, cementing parental considerations as a “top tier” right.

The proposal calls for passing legislation to ensure families have a "fair hearing in court when the federal government enforces policies that undermine their rights to raise, educate, and care for their children." Further, “the law would require the government to satisfy ‘strict scrutiny’ — the highest standard of judicial review — when the government infringes parental rights.”

Keep ReadingShow less