This bill proposes a constitutional amendment to limit the President's pardon power, prohibiting pardons for themselves, their relatives, administration members, campaign employees, or anyone who benefited them financially or acted at their direction; it also invalidates pardons issued for corrupt purposes and grants Congress the power to enforce these limitations.
Steve Cohen
Representative
TN-9
This proposed constitutional amendment limits the President's pardon power, prohibiting pardons for themselves, their family, administration members, campaign employees, or anyone who financially benefited the aforementioned. It also restricts pardons for offenses directed by or coordinated with the President. Pardons issued for corrupt purposes would be invalid, and Congress is granted the power to enforce these limitations.
This proposed Constitutional amendment aims to fundamentally change the President's pardon power, and it's a big one. Currently, the President can pardon almost anyone for federal crimes—no questions asked. This amendment throws up some major roadblocks, specifically targeting pardons that smell of self-interest or corruption.
The core of the amendment is about preventing the President from using pardons to benefit themselves, their family, or their close associates. Here’s who can't be pardoned under this new rule:
Imagine a scenario: A President's close advisor is caught in a shady financial deal that directly benefits the President. Under current law, a pardon is possible. Under this amendment? Absolutely not. Or, picture a President trying to pardon themselves before leaving office. Blocked. This changes the game by making it harder for a President to use pardons as a tool for personal or political protection.
Crucially, the amendment gives Congress the power to enforce these new rules. This means they can pass laws to investigate and potentially overturn pardons that violate the amendment's provisions. It's a significant shift in the balance of power, giving Congress a much bigger role in overseeing presidential pardons.
While the goal is clear—preventing abuse of the pardon power—there are some tricky parts. Defining "corrupt purpose" could lead to legal battles. Proving that a crime was done "at the direction" of the President, or even just "in coordination with" them, could be incredibly difficult in practice. Similarly, defining "significant personal or financial gain" may be open to interpretation, and proving it may be problematic.
This amendment is a direct response to concerns about the potential for Presidents to use pardons to shield themselves and their allies from accountability. It's a big move to strengthen checks and balances, but it also sets the stage for potential legal and political fights over what constitutes a "corrupt" pardon and who gets to decide.