Governor Perry Pardons 14

This is a year end tradition which has historical roots. Its also a central check that the executive has over the judiciary. Those selected tend to be non-controversial. As few as the governor pardons, President Obama has pardoned even fewer - 22 over the course of his presidency.

If - for whatever reason - you'd like info on how to obtain lemency, click here. 

Truman's Pardon of the Duke of Duvall County

Another post from Grits for Breakfast. Archie Parr was a party boss in South Texas and key to Lyndon Johnson's electoral success.

And a great blog I'm adding to the Executive Links: Pardon Power.

Pardons: Is It's Necessary to Find Out the Truth About Torture?

Stuart Taylor, writing for Newsweek says so:

President George W. Bush ought to pardon any official from cabinet secretary on down who might plausibly face prosecution for interrogation methods approved by administration lawyers. (It would be unseemly for Bush to pardon Vice President Dick Cheney or himself, but the next president wouldn't allow them to be prosecuted anyway—galling as that may be to critics.) The reason for pardons is simple: what this country needs most is a full and true accounting of what took place. The incoming president should convene a truth commission, with subpoena power, to explore every possible misdeed and derive lessons from it. But this should not be a criminal investigation, which would only force officials to hire lawyers and batten down the hatches.

Pardons would further a truth commission's most important goals: to uncover all important facts, identify innocent victims to be compensated, foster a serious conversation about what U.S. interrogation rules should be, recommend legal reforms, pave the way for appropriate apologies and restore America's good name. The goals should not include wrecking the lives of men and women who made grievous mistakes while doing dirty work—work they had been advised by administration lawyers was legal, and which they believed was necessary to prevent terrorist mass murder.

A criminal investigation would only hinder efforts to determine the truth, and preclude any apologies. It would spur those who know the most to take the Fifth. Any prosecutions would also touch off years of partisan warfare. The lesson for occupants of the toughest government jobs—if the next administration could find people willing to fill them—would be that saving innocent lives is less important than covering their posteriors. Any hope of a civil conversation about lessons we need to learn would be dead.

The need for truth outweighs the prosecution of criminal behavior. Ring true? Or does this simply allow an out for any administration to claim it is above the law and do as it chooses when in charge?

Pardons: Some Recent News Items

Since we're covering the executive, and are coming to terms with the notion of an executive pardon, here are some recent news items on the subject. Recall that we can consider a pardon to be an executive check on judicial powers. It also can give a conservative minded judiciary a way out when it does not want to hear new evidence concerning a convicted person's innocence. This, they can say, is up to the executive, not the judiciary.

Felons are seeking pardons from President Bush as he leaves office.
Marion Jones wants a presidential pardon.
Bush may preemptively pardon many who might face various charges when they leave office.

The Anti-Federalists and the Pardon

Sanford Levinson, commenting on the Libby pardon, reminds us that the Anti-Federalists were suspicious of the power to pardon:

"George Mason, a distinguished Virginian who refused to sign the Constitution, noted that 'the President of the United States has the unrestrained Power of granting Pardon for Treason; which may be sometimes exercised to screen from Punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the Crime, and thereby prevent a Discovery of his own guilt.' Luther Martin, another non-signatory, also objected to the potential 'attempt [of the President] to assume to himself powers not given by the constitution, and establish himself in regal authority; in which attempt a provision is made for him to secure from punishment the creatures of his ambition, the associates and abettors of his treasonable practices, by granting them pardons should they be defeated in their attempts to subvert the constitution.'"

It was another reason to oppose a system of government that created a singular executive.

The Libby Pardon

The chief executive checked the judiciary by commuting a sentence it imposed on an executive official, following a trial prosecuted by attorneys in the Justice Department (also members of the executive branch). Don't you love separated powers?

Objective background on the case against Scooter Libby is next to impossible to find. This link takes you to a page on National Public Radio's website with links to various stories about the case. It's as good as any place to get an idea about how we got to where we are.

Comments are all over the place. Here's a taste:

-The prosecutor was nuts to pursue the case.
-Rules are different for the rich and well connected.
-Clinton did worse.
-Bush's presidency is effectively over.
-It's all about keeping Libby silent.

There's much more. And irony to boot. Some point out that Marc Rich, Clinton's most controversial pardon, was defended by Scooter Libby. And Libby's current lawyer, Ted Wells, also successfully defended Clinton cabinet official Mike Espy.

Incestuous place, isn't it?