By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A recent Economist/YouGov poll indicates that a majority of Americans believe Donald Trump has overused the presidential pardon power. Furthermore, most respondents support implementing constitutional restrictions on the president’s ability to pardon. Disapproval of Trump’s recent pardons and commutations far outweighs approval. This data highlights significant public concern regarding the frequency and discretion of presidential pardons.
Read the original article here
Majorities of Americans are expressing a growing concern regarding the use of presidential pardons, particularly those issued by Donald Trump. The most common sentiment is that he has granted too many pardons. But it’s not simply the *number* of pardons that is generating controversy; it’s the nature of these pardons, and the implications they hold for the integrity of the justice system.
The core issue, as many see it, is the perception of quid pro quo. The underlying notion is that pardons are not being issued altruistically, but rather are being offered in exchange for something of value, be it loyalty, financial contributions, or other favors. The phrase “pardons for sale” has been used to describe the situation, and it encapsulates the widespread belief that these acts are motivated by self-interest and a disregard for the principles of fairness and impartiality. This is perceived as a blatant abuse of power and a betrayal of the public trust.
Furthermore, many Americans object to the type of individuals receiving these pardons. The argument is that Trump has pardoned people who the public considers to be the “worst people alive.” This includes those with whom he has personal or professional connections, those convicted of serious crimes, and those who many would see as undeserving of clemency. This leads to the concern that the pardon power is being used to protect allies and to shield them from the consequences of their actions.
A significant portion of the public believes that the pardon power itself should be fundamentally limited or even abolished. The consensus is that it is a power that is ripe for abuse, allowing presidents to act as “kings” within a system of checks and balances. Some people believe that pardons should not remove convictions, just punishment. There’s a feeling that the framers erred in giving this power to the President. The judicial system already exists and is in place, and should be respected. The anti-federalist papers of George Mason, Cato, Centinel, and others are brought up in conversations as a reminder of how the president should not be like a king.
Specifically, there is a push to prevent pardons that are motivated by bribery, or other illicit motives. There’s also a suggestion that pardons could be reversed if evidence of corruption or conspiracy is found, to prevent future presidents from acting inappropriately. Many are calling for limitations beyond the current “Good Ol’ Boys Gentlemanly Agreements To No Fuckery.”
The timing of these pardons is also raising eyebrows. Some believe that the timing is unusual, coming at the end of a term in office. This creates the impression of a president using the pardon power to insulate himself and his associates from future legal consequences. The preemptive pardons are also a problem, because people who have not been convicted, nor perhaps even charged with any crime, are pardoned, to protect them. This is widely seen as an unacceptable erosion of the rule of law.
The call for restrictions is coming from both sides of the political spectrum. The potential for abuse is clear to a wide audience. The current approach to presidential pardons is not working. The need for reform is now widely recognized, and it is a point of concern for a large portion of the American populace.