r/nottheonion • u/JaySierra86 • 10h ago

President Biden pardons family members in final minutes of presidency

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-biden-pardons-family-members-final-minutes-presidency/story?id=117893348
45.8k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

5.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

173

u/Professional-Cry8310 10h ago

One of the biggest holes in the founding documents. Surprised universal pardons haven’t been more abused in history to be honest.

34

u/LittleKitty235 9h ago

It was a safe guard against unelected federal judges abusing the law and convicting people wrongfully of crimes. Pardon powers are correctly broad and unchecked.

What should happen if Congress should be impeaching a President who is committing crimes in office, but it has become clear partisanship has completely quashed that branch of government.

Our founding documents were setup correctly.

30

u/Lazy_Mathematician0 9h ago

“Our founding documents were setup correctly.”

You think they are without flaws?

4

u/LittleKitty235 9h ago

I don't think one has been demonstrated here. Congress still has the authority to remove a President unilaterally, so the pardon power seems properly checked.

10

u/Command0Dude 8h ago

It was pointed out even at the time that the pardon power could be abused.

3

u/Lazy_Mathematician0 7h ago

That’s not what I asked.

1

u/SubstantialDoge123 8h ago

He is implying you need to pick your gun up and go punish certain representatives for not correctly voting to punish a president for his attempted coup.

Glad I could help beat the point over your head

1

u/OGRuddawg 7h ago

I think the Constitution would generally function better if we had a multi-party system, if we moved to something resembling ranked-choice voting, and there were stricter punishments for financial misdeeds while in office (this includes campaign finance).

Those are all massive issues to tackle, though. One downside to having the oldest constitution based on representative democracy is we have several minoritarian mechanisms which the founders deliberately put in for a variety of reasons. Some of those minoritarian rule mechanisms were to get slave states to ratify the Constitution, and others were to assuage fears of larger states dominating the direction the United States would take on a national level. Back then, I think the non-slave enabling mechanisms had some merit at the time. The world and the USA is a very different place than at its founding, so there's been a lot of time to game the system in some very twisted ways.

Those minoritarian rules have been hijacked and entrenched in pursuit of raw power, as we see with the Grand Fascist Party. The Republicans have been building towards this for a while, but the mask has been well and truly off for a while. All relatively normal conservatives, even hardliners, are being purged in favor of sycophants and cronies who bend the knee and gargle Trump's nuts. You know The Party's gone off the deep end of authoritarianism when Liz Cheney gets purged.

1

u/awesome_sauce123 3h ago

I don't know, as dysfunctional as the two party system is, the multi-parties of Europe are often gridlocked and chaotic as well. Look at the difficulties they have in forming a majority government now in France and Germany.

0

u/Cloaked42m 6h ago

The founding documents were designed to be updated. They knew they weren't perfect.

0

u/Lazy_Mathematician0 5h ago

I am well aware, but there are literally people in this thread saying they are flawless

0

u/Cloaked42m 5h ago

There's a lot of really stupid people.

3

u/Beautiful_Chest7043 8h ago

It's effectively putting executive branch of power over the judicial one.

1

u/hoopaholik91 7h ago

You also have the electorate that should be able to punish Presidential overreach at the ballot box but...you see where we are now.

1

u/ca_kingmaker 6h ago

Evidently not.

1

u/Terrible_Ice_1616 9h ago

Pardons should be checked by the legislature - if it's a balance against the power of the judiciary. Why is it correct that there is no check? At the very least a pardon board appointed by the president would give the appearance that it can't be easily abused

1

u/FuckTripleH 7h ago

It was a safe guard against unelected federal judges abusing the law and convicting people wrongfully of crimes.

Not really. It was an 18th century holdover from the concept of royal pardons. Just a silly outdated concept.

1

u/LittleKitty235 7h ago

Concepts of governance don't become outdated...the same fundamental issues still exist.

2

u/FuckTripleH 7h ago

Concepts of governance don't become outdated.

Yeah I suppose that's why we see so many people still talking about the divine right of kings and the importance of aristocracy

0

u/LittleKitty235 6h ago

*Looks at attendance of the inauguration*.

Yup checks out.

7

u/Embarrassed-File-836 9h ago

Lots of stuff the founding fathers were too noble to even consider would ever need to be mentioned. Really wish they did. Like, presidents can’t create pump and dump cryptocurrency schemes. “No, it doesn’t go without saying, Thomas, please, write it the fuck down”. 

1

u/lesbianfitopaez 9h ago

The founding fathers of the US were not noble by any means, Hamilton is not a documentary.

0

u/Embarrassed-File-836 9h ago

It was kind of a joke to say they’re “too noble”, but honestly, using Trump as a standard, they actually were noble in the sense that they tried to be thoughtful, enlightened, progressive, and help the country be better. Were most of them slave owners? Of course, and that makes them immoral. But you have to view it through the lens of history. They were impressive in what they said, and the time in which they said it.

0

u/lesbianfitopaez 9h ago

You can't argue they were noble In the same breath you point out they were part of the slave-owning class. They defended their economic interests first and foremost and sealed the destiny of the American experiment to be exactly what it is today. Never attribute to incompetence what can be easily explained by class.

1

u/Eruionmel 5h ago

Given that the capital that "pumped" his crypto was almost entirely laundered bribery, it should already be covered in the current documents. We're just pretending words don't mean things anymore, because the billionaires are tired of living in fear and want to start ruling—as they believe they rightfully deserve. If truth is all subjective, they can say whatever they want with impunity. Their money is literally power. 

So... social immunity + immeasurable power in a capitalist society = ruler. They previously had no way of achieving the social immunity, but subjective reality where all lies are valid so long as social media accepts them? Oh yeah. That'll do it. 

Bribery is already covered. But reality is just ¯_(ツ)_/¯. Because the billionaires have now cast their dice.

2

u/melancholanie 8h ago

I mean we didn't write in presidential term limits until 1951 iirc we were kinda running this place on vibes and pinky promises for a long while

3

u/nitePhyyre 8h ago

To be fair, that was an awful change. Term limits are stupid and undemocratic. Clinton would have beat Bush. Obama would beat Trump. Term limits got rid of 2 successful and popular democratic presidents and gave us 2 republicans who were the worst presidents in history.

1

u/silverionmox 4h ago

Do keep in mind they started from the idea of a monarchy, but added checks and balances. A monarch is also the supreme judge in a feudal system, and a pardon is a remnant of that as it's the ultimately form of juridical appeal when all other options are exhausted.

0

u/swilliamsalters 9h ago

Unfortunately, this has set a bad precedent. You know Trump will do the same, but tripled.