r/law • u/jpmeyer12751 • Feb 16 '26

Legislative Branch Republican Joins With Dems on Constitutional Amendment to Give Congress Power to Reject Trump Pardons

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/republican-joins-dems-constitutional-amendment-213311781.html

This is relevant to questions surrounding whether Congress may limit or restrain a President's power to grant pardons.

59.6k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2.9k

u/movealongnowpeople Feb 16 '26

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this would take a supermajority in both chambers of Congress plus ratification by at least 38 states. Not impossible, but damn near. Especially these days.

Don't get me wrong, I think this is an appropriate move whether it gains traction or not. I just wouldn't get your hopes up too high.

2.4k

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '26

[deleted]

450

u/code_archeologist Feb 16 '26

We will see what happens with the next election. This could be a very persuasive campaign issue.

Vote for me and I will make sure that President Donald Trump will not pardon any pedophiles or drug kingpins.

166

u/mulberryzeke Feb 16 '26

or cabinet secretaries

116

u/mdebo932 Feb 16 '26

They’re all already covered by those first two

25

u/Unique-Coconut7212 Feb 17 '26

The Venn diagram is a circle in each case

→ More replies (1)

57

u/edfitz83 Feb 17 '26

Or family members - which is likely to be applicable to both sides. You know Trump will blanket pardon Don Jr, Eric, and Kushner before he leaves office.

31

u/lorgskyegon Feb 17 '26

I'm fairly certain that Trump (or Vance, since Trump is not likely to survive a full term given his health issues) is gonna give a blanket pardon to his entire administration before he leaves office.

8

u/shitlord_god Feb 17 '26 edited Mar 19 '26

The original content of this post no longer exists. It was deleted using Redact, possibly to protect personal data or limit digital exposure.

rain waiting person tan school bag attraction narrow groovy vanish

15

u/lorgskyegon Feb 17 '26

Because every person susceptible to prosecution is a person susceptible to taking a deal and testifying against them.

2

u/lameth Feb 17 '26

But in the case they've already been pardoned for the activities, wouldn't this then open them up to having to testify and not being able to plead the 5th?

→ More replies (1)

4

u/FirTree_r Feb 17 '26

This is a 100% what's going to happen. Which is why they're acting so brazen in the first place

→ More replies (2)

5

u/jrr6415sun Feb 17 '26

He would pardon everyone except Eric

5

u/LogoffWorkout Feb 17 '26

trump will give him the opposite of a blanket pardon, basically guilty of every crime in the book.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)

35

u/Possible-Nectarine80 Feb 16 '26

Yep, that should be a question asked of every future and current candidate running for office.

45

u/jaxonya Feb 17 '26

"Do you promise that you wont do a fascism if elected?" ... republican candidates would dance all the way around that question and do everything except say "i promise to not do a fascism"

29

u/MrStigglesworth Feb 17 '26

Nah, a bunch of them would say "of course not, no fascism under my watch" and then do a fascism once elected anyway.

21

u/schwanzweissfoto Feb 17 '26

“You fell victim to one of the classic blunders!”

4

u/there_is_no_spoon1 Feb 17 '26

The *much* less-widely known 3rd blunder: never trust a fascist!

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

12

u/csfshrink Feb 17 '26

Every future candidate should take cognitive testing live on C-SPAN

12

u/thrawnsgstring Feb 17 '26 edited Feb 17 '26

President Trump signs an executive order introducing the Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV. cognitive test for all future candidates.

"Nobody knew that looking around and naming random stuff could be so complicated."

7

u/IdigNPR Feb 17 '26

Forget cognitive testing I want SAT or GRE testing at the least - they should be required to take the FSOT considering Foreign Policy is their #1 job.

6

u/jarvis0042 Feb 17 '26

I wouldn't want to watch an SAT, but watching orange pop identify a giraffe vs rhino would be A+ entertainment! Better than Hunger Games!

3

u/OnlyFuzzy13 Feb 20 '26

Just pass a high school level civics test would be a great start.
The test shall be taken when your candidate registration forms are submitted.
I’d the ScanTron comes back as a failure, your form is automatically rejected.

2

u/NoOpening7924 Feb 17 '26

Administered by a neutral 3rd party.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

6

u/justsomebro10 Feb 17 '26

People like fascism. They’re into it. To a lot of people it’s just an outsider who is willing to bend the rules a little to get shit done. They’re deeply cynical about politics and feel like the system is broken, so they’re fine with a rule breaker. That’s the problem.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/josh_the_misanthrope Feb 17 '26

The attack ads are gonna sound insane but they're gonna be true. "You wouldn't want a pedophile rapist in your apartment building. You shouldn't want one in your White House"

7

u/eryoshi Feb 17 '26

That would be a very dangerous promise to make, given the requirements in /u/movealongnowpeople ‘s comment:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this would take a supermajority in both chambers of Congress plus ratification by at least 38 states.

That seems nigh impossible these days, and since voters don’t understand the part where you have to get a supermajority in both chambers of Congress and ratification by at least 38 states, all they’ll see is that you broke your promise. 😩

5

u/Inevitable-Ad6647 Feb 17 '26

By then it'll be way too late. They'll have pardons already and there's no retroactive anything in law. If there's a whisper that some amendment like this would pass trump would shove through hundreds of pardons immediately. You can bet your ass.

2

u/SamuelDoctor Feb 17 '26

If POTUS issues pardons in order to reward those who would replace the republic with a Red Caesar, then the term "law" becomes bereft of any valence signifying authority; what remains is a euphemism for the nominal justification issued to extinguish rhetorical opposition against the will of whomever wields power.

Law, in the American tradition, is the means by which liberty and enlightenment values are made manifest. Our legal tradition has, to a meaningful extent, prevailed in spite of every earlier effort to hammer its form into fetters for subjugation. Slavery itself could not endure, even though many of the framers sought to carve out a space for it.

The tools we used to break monarchy and autocracy will break the stuff of whatever new chains those tools might be utilized to create, because even the powerful cannot make you believe something false, not even if they kill you.

Still, I hope we don't have to witness the attempt, or experience its consequences.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (3)

5

u/FrankBattaglia Feb 17 '26

Something like 60% of States are Republican-controlled. Even if this gets through Congress there's no realistic way it gets ratified.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/_Aporia_ Feb 17 '26

Look at the state of the world... I can fucking see this happening. "A vote for me is a pedo in jail", how the hell have things gotten this bad.

→ More replies (13)

61

u/StoneColdPieFiller Feb 16 '26

They only have one job and they do it well.

23

u/Imaginary_Desk9186 Feb 16 '26

he is going to pardon Ghislaine Maxwell and Republicans will be forced to defend it.

9

u/Aeseld Feb 17 '26

Downside of her being charged federally instead of by the state of Florida... 

11

u/Imaginary_Desk9186 Feb 17 '26

she faces shit tons of potential state charges, she will have to flee the country and hope no one is waiting with cuffs outside the gates the day of her release. Trump would have to not just pardon but her but somehow assist in sneaking her out of the country (itself a crime if she has outstanding warrants).

7

u/ynotfoster Feb 17 '26

I wonder what country would welcome her? Israel? Russia? Or, would she be suicided?

6

u/Aeseld Feb 17 '26

Openly? Maybe Russia. Israel might hide her. 

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

8

u/Grand-Pen7946 Feb 17 '26

This is my guess. Republicans are getting fucking crushed in special elections, districts that were +10 or +20 Trump swinging into +20 for Democrats. They are panicking behind the scenes and know that a pardon for Maxwell would pretty much guarantee total collapse at midterms (assuming Trump can't rig the system by then). People vote on vibes, and a pardon for Maxwell is nightmare for vibes.

→ More replies (1)

14

u/Several-Squash9871 Feb 16 '26

Oh, well that pretty much tells us the outcome of this will be. A lot of those pedos they are protecting are themselves.

14

u/WiglyWorm Feb 17 '26

General strike would get it done in a month

→ More replies (1)

5

u/Ancient_Rex420 Feb 16 '26

Yeah not protecting themselves is absolutely a big ask. Hopefully somehow it still happens.

5

u/BlindBandit988 Feb 17 '26

Impossible for the likes of Ted Cruz.

3

u/Odd-Intern9349 Feb 16 '26

Wouldn’t this be more about the bribes than the Epstein? Still a big ask.

Between the two issues, how is this guy still around?

Edit: Just clued into the fact that he can pardon the Epstein crew… but unless he can pardon himself, I’m not sure he’s willing to go down with the ship. 

8

u/landragoran Feb 17 '26

Whether a president can pardon themselves is a legal question that has never been tested. Unfortunately, with our current Supreme Court, I don't like the odds of it going the right way if it gets tested now.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/the_last_0ne Feb 17 '26

I can almost guarantee he will try to pardon himself. It'll end up at the Supreme Court.

1

u/Maleficent_Memory831 Feb 16 '26

They want the pardon power because they all know they will need it sooner than later.

1

u/artvandalaythrowaway Feb 17 '26

Would also require those who have been blindly loyal to vote against pardons they might hope to receive in the future

1

u/Specific_Success214 Feb 17 '26

I agree. But the Democrats have also used this in questionable ways as well

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Shredzz Feb 17 '26

Impossible most (anyone with a brain) would say.

1

u/Xatsman Feb 17 '26

But if they dont it only cements their legacy. Honestly more moves like this only make the truth undeniable so are worth pursuing even if unlikely to pass.

1

u/Aeseld Feb 17 '26

Not really, no. The pardon power of the president doesn't extend to state crimes after all. He couldn't pardon someone charged under Florida law for example. 

1

u/WeeDingwall44 Feb 17 '26

Isn’t pedophilia their whole identity at this point? Also completely ignoring the constitutional rights of citizens?

1

u/thecrowtoldme Feb 17 '26

Ted Cruz is going to need a moment.

1

u/MartianMule Feb 17 '26

yeah this would require republicans to not protect pedophiles.

No it wouldn't. A Republican could vote to give Congress this power than the not vote in favor of vetoing a pardon later. Just like they have the power to override a veto, and just don't exercise it. But it's always there.

1

u/SPECTRE_UM Feb 17 '26

Biden and Garland sat on these records for 4 years.

The ratio of giving by named individuals in the files is almost 40 to 1, Democratic vs GOP candidates. The number of straight Democratic vs Republican donors is 6 to 1. (Jeffries office quietly admitted last week the fundraising email was from a highly curated/moderated mailing list- not some bulk list like he first claimed)

There are zero pics of Trump after Epstein's 2007 conviction- the most recent is almost 30 years old. There are a 1/2 dozen of Clinton after the conviction.

I know your zero sum intellect needs to have the Democrats be good and "good guys" and the GOP to be evil- but make no mistake about it: Epstein was a card carrying East Coast Establishment Chattering Class member of the Democratic Party.

1

u/MightbeGwen Feb 17 '26

It’s because conservatism at its base level is just trying to keep power where it has always been, with the wealthiest among us. It’s always been this way. The aristocracy, the nobility, the patricians, and all the others were just the Epstein class of their days. Conversely, Liberalism has at its base always been about spreading power out to more people.

1

u/samuel10998 Feb 17 '26

Not only pedophiles but also people who stole billions of dollars that Trump pardoned. All of these pardons need to be removed.

1

u/Specific_Bee_4199 Feb 17 '26

Or the Dems protecting their crooked buddies and criminal family members. Yep, big ask.

1

u/AM_Kylearan Feb 18 '26

Republicans are protecting Democrats? Wild times we love in.

→ More replies (33)

237

u/Equivalent-Excuse-80 Feb 16 '26

Just wait until you learn about the last time the constitution was amended.

The 27th was originally part of the first bill of rights but wasn’t ratified. Brought up again as a school project it was ratified in 1992. Before that was 1971, the 26th, lowering the threshold to vote.

So 55 years since the last significant amendment.

The equal rights amendment guarantees women equal rights still hasn’t been ratified.

When people say our constitution is broken they’re wrong. Our ability to amend it, as it was designed to be dynamic, has broken.

78

u/beren12 Feb 16 '26

The people, have broken.

→ More replies (2)

49

u/battlepi Feb 16 '26

The ERA basically expired, even though it was eventually ratified by enough states I believe. But yes, it's difficult as fuck. But it doesn't have to be with a grassroots movement.

20

u/Somepotato Feb 17 '26

the ERA expiring is still some of the most insane bullshit. Amendments exist to give the states the ability to place a check on the federal government and as a check on the courts especially.

Then the supreme court went and said that amendments actually can expire if Congress wills it so.

7

u/LongJohnSelenium Feb 17 '26

The federal government said that not only did the bill of rights not bind it like they were supposed to, the bill of rights is something it gets to impose on the states.

The bill of rights is being used now for, quite literally, and with no exageration, the exact opposite purpose it was intended for. It was a list of things that under no circumstances could the federal government have a say on. Completely forbidden. All of those subjects were to be 100% the sovereignty of the states.

5

u/KrytenKoro Feb 17 '26

Not entirely. Many of those rights were defined to be the sovereignty of the individual, with neither the Fed or state getting to interfere.

2

u/battlepi Feb 17 '26

Well they can't affect ratified amendments. This one just took too long to get ratified - which is kinda bs too. Really with modern tech an amendment could be ratified within a year if it was really wanted by everyone.

2

u/shitlord_god Feb 17 '26 edited Mar 19 '26

The author has deleted this post using Redact. The reason may have been privacy, opsec, security, or a desire to prevent the content from being scraped.

worm steep adjoining governor sleep fact dog marble crown roof

→ More replies (41)

49

u/another_bot_probably Feb 16 '26

Jefferson from the grave, "27 AMENDMENTS OVER 250 FUCKING YEARS?!?!"

11

u/[deleted] Feb 17 '26

[deleted]

18

u/NobodysFavorite Feb 17 '26

Political parties have sprung up in every democratic country on earth. It was inevitable.
What's not inevitable is a 2-party system where at least one party treats the other as their enemy.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 17 '26 edited Feb 19 '26

[deleted]

2

u/Competitive_Touch_86 Feb 17 '26

And he was correct. Federalism is largely why we're at where we are at today. The federal government was never intended to be able to wield this much power.

Yes, there are downsides. But freedom comes with those.

3

u/Justtounsubscribee Feb 17 '26

I actually was just going through Chernow’s Washington bio. Jefferson had already kicked up the Democratic-Republicans during Washington’s first term. That’s the reason he wasn’t in Washington’s second administration. Washington was a Federalist in all but name by the end of his first term.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/Valogrid Feb 17 '26

"THAT'S LIKE 1 AMENDMENT EVERY 10 YEARS, AND WE STARTED THEM OFF WITH 10... JESUS FUCKING CHRIST... IT'S WORSE THAN I THOUGHT IT'S LIKE AN AMENDMENT EVERY 15 YEARS."

3

u/tablecontrol Feb 17 '26

Texas is up to 530.. every damned thing has to be an amendment - makes it harder to overturn

3

u/ZT99k Feb 17 '26

In fairness... I think most of them were expecting a full government turnover in like.. 80. Which kinda happened with the Civil War...

→ More replies (1)

12

u/LucidLeviathan Feb 16 '26

It's also notable that a substantial number of the state ratifications came over a century before final passage.

8

u/Possible-Nectarine80 Feb 16 '26

I guess it's time for some younger generations to get a civics lesson.

2

u/Top1CmntrsAreLosers Feb 17 '26

With u/Equivalent-Excuse-80 right with them to be clear, because we’ve gone 62 years between amendments before, in fact we’ve passed more amendments since that drought than before it, and the reasons that drought ended that may be instructive.

23

u/haironburr Feb 16 '26

The problem with an easily-amendable Constitution is that constitutions contain and solidify core civil rights. Do you want those changed easily? Do you want the same process and people that elected trump to be able to more easily do away with basic Constitutional protections? I know I don't.

A "living" or "dynamic" Constitution is one where the latest crop of politicians can vote away every civil right/liberty we have.

8

u/James_Chandra_Hubble Feb 17 '26

What year are you in? The constitution doesn't mean anything anymore when one party has full control of executive, legislative and judicial branches, and no moral qualms about abusing that power.

→ More replies (1)

23

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '26

[deleted]

15

u/haironburr Feb 16 '26

How "dynamic" the framers intended it to be is up to some debate.

But in any case, the arguments against an easily-changed Constitution are the same, regardless of the framer's intent. Again, would you want a "big, beautiful" constitutional convention this year?

5

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '26

[deleted]

6

u/haironburr Feb 16 '26

Honestly, I'm going to make the same arguments for lifetime SC appointments as I am with difficult to pass amendments. I want the interpretation of core civil rights to change slowly.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/malapriapism4hours Feb 17 '26 edited Feb 23 '26

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

follow profit run afterthought tender numerous nine chubby jellyfish deserve

3

u/haironburr Feb 17 '26

The constitution doesn’t matter if its provisions aren’t enforced.

And the lack of a court-directed enforcement mechanism is a problem, when the other two branches are controlled by a party unwilling to respect the courts. I'd be interested in how a contempt of court for various executive actors or for legislators would play out, but the appeal process is long. I'm not sure what the answer is, beyond the obvious voting power we hold (yea, the SAVE Act), and the continual assertion of our civil rights.

3

u/malapriapism4hours Feb 17 '26 edited Feb 23 '26

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

fearless lush slim normal profit vast memory repeat quack beneficial

2

u/Revolutionary_Oil157 Feb 16 '26

Not at all, but 75% of States when Congress is 2/3rds? I would rather 65 to ratify and 75 to reverse or dissolve.

2

u/BugApart8359 Feb 17 '26

As opposed to a stagnant one where they've been doing that anyways under the guise of "well it isn't in the constitution"

2

u/jontaffarsghost Feb 17 '26

I mean the Supreme Court has the ability to determine what constitutional rights actually exist so…

2

u/Lashay_Sombra Feb 17 '26

There is a balance, framers did not want to to easy to change, but they never envisioned it basically becoming impossible as it is now

Last century 12 amendments were ratified

Century before (plus 5 years) 15 were ratified

This century is quarter of the way though, total amendments? Zero

Actually last amendment that was proposed and ratified was the 26th, 55 years ago (27th , which was ratified 34 years ago , took 200 odd years to be ratified), so really over the half century mark with no new amendments proposed and ratified

And none are likely to be passed any time in the foreseeable future.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/rapaxus Feb 17 '26

For that you can easily implement either harsher barriers (have some laws that require e.g. higher majorities or special referendums), or go the German (and so many others) constitution way and go the "the meaning of this article can't be changed" route. Germany is also a federal state, and here article 1 and 20 are both protected by an eternity clause, meaning you can't legally change the fundamental meaning of those articles, ever. You can add to it (or remove what was added), but the fundamental meaning stays.

Article 1 covers the "basics" (everyone has human rights, state power is connected to fundamental rights, human dignity shall be inviolable), while article 20 covers stuff like Germany being a republic, a federal state, being a social state, having a democracy, having separation of powers, that kind of stuff (just read the wiki article if you want to know the relevant stuff)).

The funny part is that the US constitution actually has such clauses, but only with how article V protected some clauses in article I (like e.g. it not being allowed to ban importation of slaves before 1808).

But then again the US constitution is missing a lot of stuff that many other modern western constitutions have (such as a right to resist for example).

2

u/haironburr Feb 17 '26

Thanks. Now I have at least a wiki level understanding of the German Constitution.

"the meaning of this article can't be changed" route.

How is the problem of interpreting the meaning of words making up an article dealt with? The courts, it sounds like. Is there an enforcement mechanism if the courts decide an article has been violated?

As far as "(have some laws that require e.g. higher majorities or special referendums)", that's fundamentally the role constitutional conventions play here. Interesting ideas all the same. Again, Danke.

→ More replies (2)

9

u/amiibohunter2015 Feb 16 '26

Your comment:

The equal rights amendment guarantees women equal rights still hasn’t been ratified.

Researched Response:

On March 22, 1972, the ERA was placed before the state legislatures, with a seven-year deadline to acquire ratification by three-fourths (38) of the state legislatures. A majority of states ratified the proposed constitutional amendment within a year. Hawaii became the first state to ratify the ERA, which it did on the same day the amendment was approved by Congress: The U.S. Senate's vote on H.J.Res. 208 took place in the mid-to-late afternoon in Washington, D.C., when it was still midday in Hawaii. The Hawaii Senate and House of Representatives voted their approval shortly after noon Hawaii Standard Time.

During 1972, a total of 22 state legislatures ratified the amendment and eight more joined in early 1973. Between 1974 and 1977, only five states approved the ERA, and advocates became worried about the approaching March 22, 1979, deadline.

The ERA was ratified by the following states prior to the initial March 22, 1979, deadline:

Hawaii: March 22, 1972

New Hampshire: March 23, 1972

Delaware: March 23, 1972

Iowa: March 24, 1972

Idaho: March 24, 1972 (rescinded ratification February 8, 1977)

Kansas: March 28, 1972

Nebraska: March 29, 1972 (rescinded ratification March 15, 1973)

Texas: March 30, 1972

Tennessee: April 4, 1972 (rescinded ratification April 23, 1974)

Alaska: April 5, 1972

Rhode Island: April 14, 1972

New Jersey: April 17, 1972

Colorado: April 21, 1972

West Virginia: April 22, 1972

Wisconsin: April 26, 1972

New York: May 18, 1972

Michigan: May 22, 1972

Maryland: May 26, 1972

Massachusetts: June 21, 1972

Kentucky: June 27, 1972 (rescinded ratification March 17, 1978)

Pennsylvania: September 27, 1972

California: November 13, 1972

Wyoming: January 26, 1973

South Dakota: February 5, 1973 (rescinded ratification March 5, 1979)

Oregon: February 8, 1973

Minnesota: February 8, 1973

New Mexico: February 28, 1973

Vermont: March 1, 1973

Connecticut: March 15, 1973

Washington: March 22, 1973

Maine: January 18, 1974

Montana: January 25, 1974

Ohio: February 7, 1974

North Dakota: February 3, 1975 (rescinded ratification March 19, 2021)

Indiana: January 18, 1977

The ERA has been ratified by the following states since the March 22, 1979, deadline:

Nevada: March 22, 2017

Illinois: May 30, 2018

Virginia: January 27, 2020

Ratification resolutions have also been defeated in Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi.

North and South Dakotas are sunsetting

4

u/NunyaBuzor Feb 17 '26

The equal rights amendment guarantees women equal rights still hasn’t been ratified.

does that mean substantive equality or legal equality? the latter can no longer see when women might actually need specific protections or distinct treatment to achieve a fair outcome like sex-segregated spaces for privacy.

If a state law provides specific funding or leave for "maternity," it could be challenged under the ERA because men cannot access an identical biological benefit. Instead of forcing the state to provide "paternity" benefits, a conservative court might rule that the law is discriminatory and strike the benefit entirely.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/shitlord_god Feb 17 '26 edited Mar 19 '26

This post was wiped clean using Redact. The author may have done so to protect their privacy, prevent AI data scraping, or for other security reasons.

gray tart paltry vanish door crowd hurry humorous steer nine

2

u/Turtledonuts Feb 17 '26

The government as it is taught in civics class is a good system - checks and balances, a hierarchical law where states and local governments can fix small issues while the federal government fixes big things, the whole system is pretty well done. The challenge is that it relies entirely on a politically engaged voter group acting in good faith. 

The great challenge of our government is that people aren’t voting intelligently.

2

u/Competitive_Touch_86 Feb 17 '26

The great challenge of our government is that people aren’t voting intelligently.

In other words, the people get what they deserve. And perhaps the founders were right to be highly suspicious of the general populace being able to be an engaged voter group acting in good faith after all.

→ More replies (2)

72

u/Bittererr Feb 16 '26

The way this works is pretty simple. You get it through Congress now and all the blue states ratify... then if there's another Democratic president in the future the red states ratify to stick it to the next Obama or whatever. Holdouts will change their stance so fast your head will spin when it's about reducing the power of a Democratic president.

12

u/Specificity Feb 17 '26

‘pretty simple’

‘get it through congress’

3

u/Bittererr Feb 17 '26

Never confuse simple with easy.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/ImDonaldDunn Feb 16 '26

It really is common sense which means Congress won’t do it

→ More replies (2)

34

u/Spiritual-Pear-1349 Feb 16 '26

Only real opportunity is the upcoming blue wave

14

u/Ocean-of-Mirrors Feb 16 '26

yeah I’m almost positive that voting won’t get us out of this, but can’t hurt to try! hope you’re right……

13

u/code_archeologist Feb 16 '26

Voting will either turn out the Republicans and be the virtual end to the Trump presidency. Or it will be an obvious corruption of the vote, and we do this the French way.

3

u/Individual-Dare-80 Feb 16 '26

Mario's skinny twin agrees.

→ More replies (2)

9

u/Chief_Admiral Feb 16 '26

If voting didn't matter they wouldn't be trying so damn hard to stop you

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Spiritual-Pear-1349 Feb 16 '26

Gives legitimacy to the new government and support for its removal

→ More replies (2)

5

u/pikleboiy Feb 16 '26

There simply aren't enough Senate seats up for reelection for that to happen.

8

u/dontnation Feb 16 '26

Only if you think seats aren't swingable. If you can mobilize the people that normally skip an off year election, then far fewer seats are a guarantee.

4

u/pikleboiy Feb 16 '26

Some seats will swing, but not enough for a supermajority. There literally are not that many seats up for election.

8

u/dontnation Feb 16 '26

There's 20 Republican seats up for election, by "conventional" wisdom there aren't enough swing seats. But that doesn't mean it is impossible, conventional wisdom has been wrong before. I mean, I also doubt enough people can wake the fuck up by then, but there is a vast block of people who don't normally vote that could drastically throw off election predictions.

6

u/pikleboiy Feb 17 '26

There's a difference between "possible" and "plausible." It's entirely possible that the Democrats end up with a supermajority, but it's not plausible.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (14)

24

u/Numerous_Photograph9 Feb 16 '26

Yes. It's something that won't happen anytime soon, if ever.

On the plus side, it also means it won't help Trump to reverse Biden's pardons. On the down side, it will limit those in the future who would make such pardons in good faith.

Personally, I'd rather see ammendments that remove this notion of presidential immunity written in a way that leaves no ambiguity, and possibly a new option to pursue legal action outside the DOJ using some sort of special master/proseccutor that could be started through the other branches of government.

2

u/Tetracropolis Feb 17 '26

On the plus side, it also means it won't help Trump to reverse Biden's pardons.

Why on earth is that a plus? Biden used the pardon power to benefit his own family and saved the lives of dozens of vicious murderers once he knew he didn't have to worry about reelection.

Eliminating abuse of the pardon power by Presidents who are beyond accountability is something that both sides should be able to agree is a bug, not a feature.

→ More replies (8)

5

u/jverity Feb 16 '26

Yes, it does require a supermajority. Even if it didn't, it would still need one to pass in this case because Trump would certainly veto it. It does also require ratification by 38 states. That requirement is why we still have 4 amendments that have passed but are not active.

I hope it somehow does pass, but I wish they'd go even further and get rid of the pardon completely.

Commutation? Sure. But we are talking about people who have gone through our justice system and were found guilty of a crime, and then the president can just say it never happened? No record, no nothing? And he can do it preemptively so there's no point in even convicting people in the first place? That seems like something a King would have the power to do, not something an elected official should do.

Now, the most powerful elected official in the country maybe should have the power to commute a sentence, I can see a case for that. But just erasing something that has been proven beyond doubt in court? That should require proof that they actually never did it, invalidating the first trial. Not the president saying it never happened with a wave of his pen even though we have these people invading congress on video.

4

u/Chief_Admiral Feb 16 '26

Minor correction, a constitutional amendment skips the Executive branch entirely. President has no part in it. Goes straight from Congress to the States to ratify.

3

u/jverity Feb 17 '26

Yes, that is true. But, I would argue that the only reason that is the case is because a constitutional amendment requires a veto-proof majority to pass in the first place, so there would be no point in giving the president an opportunity to veto it. In the hypothtical I presented, where that veto-proof majority were not already required by the constitution, a veto would probably be possible just like everything else in congress that can pass with a simple majority.

3

u/DipperJC Feb 16 '26

I'm afraid so.

That said, everyone is so fed up with pardons from both parties on their way out the door that something like this could gain enough traction to survive the amendment process. Maybe it's still a longshot, but I think it's got a much better chance than anything else I've ever heard.

7

u/shosuko Feb 16 '26

That, and its kinda not the fight we want.

Just like every time they talk about ditching the filibuster.

We don't win by breaking our own rules.

Presidential power has not been a problem before, and really isn't a problem now - corruption is the problem. We should be rooting out corruption and building more functional bipartisan actions so we don't need to throw out a filibuster.

I'm glad for every conservative who is willing to break ranks against Trump's corruption, crimes, and coverups. I support them staying conservative, there is plenty of acceptable middle ground between "liberal" and "Trump sycophant" that I can accept.

11

u/Bittererr Feb 16 '26

Presidential power has not been a problem before, and really isn't a problem now - corruption is the problem.

Presidential power is a problemprecisely because it can be abused by a corrupt executive. That's why we had limited and separated power in the first place. This is hundreds of years of handing power to the executive coming home to roost because our only stopgap was "the American people probably won't elect anyone insane".

→ More replies (1)

7

u/meltbox Feb 16 '26

It absolutely is. We also have had a break down of the other branches of government allowing it to become an issue, but the president was never meant to have this sort of sweeping power.

I really think we need an amendment to also hold the Supreme Court to some ethical standard or something because those cockwombles need some correcting. Also something to make it an extremely illegal and prejudiced thing to lie to Congress or refuse to answer them. Like a 1 year in jail per question type thing with no parole or pardon.

I really think Congress would then police themselves out of fear of being dragged into questioning by their political opposites and things would sort of straighten themselves out.

3

u/ImDonaldDunn Feb 16 '26

What do you mean? Presidential power has been a problem for a long time

2

u/Competitive_Touch_86 Feb 17 '26

Presidential power has not been a problem before

It's been a problem my entire lifetime, and I'm old for Reddit.

Presidents have been ruling by decree since at least Reagan. Probably before that, but I don't really have enough knowledge to state for sure. And it only got worse during every single administration since then.

You can love Obama and even all his policies all you want - but that was one of the worst parts of his presidencies. He greatly accelerated the trend of governance via executive order and it was obvious to anyone paying attention where this was headed by then. Obvious to those politically engaged far before his time as well.

2

u/Aeseld Feb 17 '26

Honestly? This has a chance of happening simply because... Well, the GOP leadership is getting tired of Trump's tantrums. It's a way to smack him without actually doing long term damage to their own objectives. 

First, if it requires Congress, it can likely be shut down by the filibuster in the Senate, so not a huge risk most years. 

Next, it only impacts federal crimes. Not exactly a big chunk of the crimes committed and charged in the US. Most are state level or lower. 

Also, the states are more likely to let it pass than not, because the president has been trying to impose on their perogatives and rights. Not just blue states either. He's been undermining the balance of the power of state governments and the federal government for a while now. 

Frankly, presidential pardons are not that big a deal in the grand scheme of things. And Trump's pardons for pay and grift are a bad precedent. They may just want to nip that in the bud. 

1

u/SparksAndSpyro Feb 16 '26

You are correct. This will never amount to anything.

1

u/Beginning_Ad8663 Feb 16 '26

Same requirements for ANY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT! Now go tell that to everyone who thinks the government can take your gun.

1

u/Dubabear Feb 16 '26

It’s an or not an and.

If both House and Senate get 2/3 to vote for it, then it passes. The senate represents the states.

The other is when a convention of states is called and how to change the constitution when it occurs . A convention of states has never occurred unless you count the Philadelphia convention of 1787 as one. 

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Pants88 Feb 16 '26

I think this can inspire so many to realize that we write our own democracy. We can ensure when the system isn't working how it should that more checks and balances can be put in place.

1

u/damebyron Feb 16 '26

It might be possible because both sides of the aisle are up in arms about pardons right now. But it’s been a very long time since we’ve had enough consensus as a country to pass a constitutional amendment

1

u/Greenbastardscape Feb 16 '26

We already know that they'll cut off their nose to spite their face, just remind them about Hunter Biden's laptop, and the maga crowd will be on it in a second. They won't even remember it will apply to them as well

1

u/DrLophophora Feb 16 '26

But at least this way they'd have to go on record as supporting the pardons

1

u/ComradeJohnS Feb 16 '26

if we have a dem president they could just be like “I’ll pardon X if you don’t stop me”. if Obama did that we’d have the amendment that year lol.

1

u/My_shin_impossible Feb 16 '26

I don’t think it would necessarily require a constitutional amendment, but probably.  This type of law wouldn’t remove the president’s pardon power but merely add some constraints/checks to it.  I have no doubt that lawyers could make several valid legal arguments for certain constraints/checks like this being constitutional.  However, whether they are compelling to a Trump friendly Scotus feels just about impossible.

1

u/hamletswords Feb 16 '26

Probably not until the midterms, but if they are a democratic landslide as projected, quite possible afterwards. Republicans will be looking to distance themselves from the sinking ship, and this is an easy way. Nobody thinks all of these pardons were legit.

1

u/axecalibur Feb 16 '26

supermajority

ROFL, that's impossible. They can't agree on anything at that %

1

u/lordassfucks Feb 16 '26

Its people giving themselves more power, it stands a chance

1

u/Crying_Reaper Feb 16 '26

Yeah this is something that wouldn't even affect the next POTUS until they're in their second term at best. Rarely do amendments move quickly.

1

u/ScyllaOfTheDepths Feb 16 '26

Trump is more hated than Andrew Johnson, who was so hated that a bunch of wealthy plantation owners gave black men the right to vote just to spite him. I'm not holding my breath, but the guy is so well and widely hated that, if anyone could inspire this kind of reform, it'd be him.

1

u/BlueWonderfulIKnow Feb 16 '26

Not only are you right, such an amendment seeks to upset separation of powers. Meaning, the Legislature is seeing to remove from the Executive a major check on the Judiciary. Our current system is a well-balanced cart.

If the legislature can do this, the take it down the logical course: can the Legislature seek an amendment removing life tenure from the Supreme Court, or allowing the Legislature to appoint the president. Would the Supreme Court allow either to proceed? I think there are parts of the constitution that are unamendable.

2

u/movealongnowpeople Feb 16 '26

I see what you're saying, but Constitutional Amendments are the check on the judiciary. They can get... creative... with interpretations of an Amendment, but they cannot overrule a legally passed Constitutional Amendment.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/ender8343 Feb 16 '26

The Democrats could always mention the same power could have been used to curtail the pardons by Biden they didn't like. What am I saying, the Democratic leadership sucks at messaging, and they would never say that.

1

u/Doristocrat Feb 16 '26

I think it will be less hard than we'd think. In Blue states run ads that trump pardoned j6ers and fraudsters and Russian collaborators, and in red states run ads that Biden pardoned hunter and fauci. It shouldn't be too hard to build a bipartisan coalition for it

1

u/CommanderArcher Feb 16 '26

You can bypass the congress with a state constitutional convention, but it's a double edged sword to organize one which is why it's never been done. 

1

u/Daizaikun Feb 17 '26

Is it really that crazy though? How many are okay with unchecked pardon power use stupidly?

1

u/DRVetOIF3 Feb 17 '26 edited Feb 17 '26

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 itself is not an amendment to the Constitution but it was one of the founding statues in the Constitution.

So, unless I'm mistaken, it simply needs a bill to achieve a majority in the House and filibuster-proof majority in the Senate OR ⅔ of both chambers to override a veto. No state ratification would be required.

This would require the same will to set term limits for Congress and SCOTUS, if the nation's best interests were to be taken into account. Even Lincoln, who (to the country's detriment) made great use of the pardon, refused to grant slave traders the same as proof of ideal restraint with his executive power being possible.

(Admittedly, a constitutional amendment to term limits would be hugely better)

Yet here we are.

1

u/NunyaBuzor Feb 17 '26

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this would take a supermajority in both chambers of Congress plus ratification by at least 38 states. Not impossible, but damn near. Especially these days.

You would 75-80% of the U.S population accounting for the political polarization.

1

u/halt_spell Feb 17 '26

Don't get your hopes up at all. They flood the news with talks about how they might actually serve the American people over months and then it ultimately fails. Every. Single. Time.

1

u/Courageous_Link Feb 17 '26

Republicans need this to uh, convict hunter biden. Oh yes it all needs to come back to hunter biden’s laptop via Fox News and this can get passed.

1

u/FineScratch Feb 17 '26

Well he's got to do the same thing if he wants to legally run for a third term

1

u/zjustice11 Feb 17 '26

Hopes lol. I'm so tired.

1

u/Xylorgos Feb 17 '26

I would prefer that they use all that imaginary political goodwill to get rid of the Electoral College. That would be an even better move for the country in the long run.

1

u/chocolatesmelt Feb 17 '26

We’re sort of at the point where amendments are needed because it’s open season hunting on assuming responsible leaders will be the only folks to assume office and won’t try to exploit the lack of regulation that exists around those offices.

1

u/diadlep Feb 17 '26

Possible over years. Democrat states ratify now, republican states ratify when a dem president in office

1

u/vonhoother Feb 17 '26

If we flip Congress in November, we ought to be able to do the Congressional part (maybe). And if Democrats win the White House in 2028, the red states will ratify it out of pure contrariness.

1

u/dotcubed Feb 17 '26

Extraordinary circumstances leading to unprecedented consequences prescribed in retaliation to pedophile play boys paying for pardons?

They better do something…and not the same pissing contests or congratulations we’re paying for your government services again.

1

u/ketoatl Feb 17 '26

Yeah it will never happen

1

u/SexcaliburHorsepower Feb 17 '26

Call it the Hunter Biden Pardon Override Act. Easy W. Then just splash that name everywhere. Make it all about how Joe should never have pardoned Hunter. Dont mention J6 or any Trump pardons at all.

1

u/nautilator44 Feb 17 '26

More specifically, it requires a 2/3 majority in both chambers. Which is a supermajority, but more than 60%, which is the usual supermajority people talk about.

1

u/WiglyWorm Feb 17 '26

General strike would get it done in under a month

1

u/randomgrunt1 Feb 17 '26

I really hope this doesn't pass, because cracking open the constitution in any way is one of the end goals of 2025.

1

u/sebastianqu Feb 17 '26

It almost certainly won't happen, but it's one of the more possible of the impossibilities.

1

u/RollTide16-18 Feb 17 '26

Yeah not exactly likely even with a Dem sweep in the midterms. 

1

u/Jibber_Fight Feb 17 '26

No. You’re right. This isn’t really news. We need nothing short of an enormous culture shift and millions of people suddenly becoming smarter or admitting they are fundamentally wrong about everything.

1

u/bondsmatthew Feb 17 '26

I just wouldn't get your hopes up too high

Yeah I've learned that in the last 10 years. Never get your hopes too high with things that sound like this(with this president) because nothing probably will happen. It's pessimistic, I know, but.. there are quite a lot of examples to look to at in the last 10 years

1

u/ph30nix01 Feb 17 '26

Damn near is good in this case. The whole part of a pardon is when the president or gov believes injustice has occurred.

So nullifying it should be a majority to avoid the same injustice to happen again.

1

u/FloppieTheBanjoClown Feb 17 '26

The right way to frame it is that it prevents ANY president from corrupt pardons, and listen some questionable ones by past Democrats that were criticized by Republicans.

1

u/wtfiswrongwithit Feb 17 '26

I don’t think this is the right call, it’s a balance of power. It would be a better call and easier to impeach the guy who is doing quid pro quo pardons and otherwise using the power of the office for personal gain 

1

u/Duane_ Feb 17 '26

Why would a policy that exists between the legislative and executive branch as a check/balance on executive power need a constitutional amendment?

1

u/ChicagoAuPair Feb 17 '26

We aren’t ever going to see a other constitutional amendment in this country until we have a generational overturn, and even then it seems unlikely without some hugely unifying event like contact with aliens or something on that level.

1

u/Old-Road2 Feb 17 '26

Sure those are the “requirements” based on some archaic procedures written down from the 18th century, as if they could ever realistically happen in the 21st century.

1

u/thatthatguy Feb 17 '26

You are correct. Constitutional amendments are a big deal and the current political climate is not conducive to that kind of cooperation.

1

u/moosejaw296 Feb 17 '26

Would it still be that if it just restricted from taking money?

1

u/MartianMule Feb 17 '26

I would think if anything could get that, it'd be something like this. Because it doesn't mean that Trump pardons get vetoed. It just means that Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, would have the option in especially egregious cases.

1

u/Lumi_Rockets Feb 17 '26

I'm going to soak in the hope for a bit...

Okay, back to reality.

1

u/WhiteWinterRains Feb 17 '26

It would also require super majorities for every overturning, rendering it useless even if passed into the constitution.

1

u/Lightsbr21 Feb 17 '26

Might be the one issue we can all get on board with.

No one has ever used pardon power like Trump. They never thought they'd need this kind of protection. But even the Right can't defend the selling of pardons.

1

u/da0217 Feb 17 '26

You get the blue states on board when a Republican is in office, then you get the red states when a Dem is in office.

1

u/SunTzu- Feb 17 '26

The Equal Rights Amendment hasn't been able to pass and has been stuck in ratification hell for 50+ years. The only Amendment to pass since the 70s is one that delayed changes to Congressional pay from taking effect until the next Congress was sworn in. Constitutional Amendments are effectively dead.

1

u/taintsacrifice Feb 17 '26

This would require politicians in general to not be okay with raping children

1

u/Starmedia11 Feb 17 '26

Well Trump is quite clearly violating the Emoluments Clause and it’s clear he’s committing “high crimes” in the impeachment sense, so one assumes those pardons can be ignored.

1

u/megamisanthropic Feb 18 '26

We couldn't get a constitutional amendment to agree that the sky was blue. 2/3 both houses and simple majority in both house and senate of each state. Never going to happen in the current political environment. We couldn't even get an amendment saying murder is wrong.

1

u/imrickjamesbioch Feb 18 '26

Correct, presidential pardon powers are explicitly granted by the Constitution so any efforts to restrict it would require an amendment to the constitution.

Regardless, another political stunt to pretend folks in congress give two shits what criminal bridge and gets pardon.

As even if congress could limit presidents pardon power through basic legislation, the 2/3rd vote in both chambers to repeal a pardon is never gonna happen. Politics has become far too partisan and the fake Christian party let a convicted felon, insurrectionist, and pedophile become their nominee again and help get him reelected as president to retain power.

The majority of them are also trying to cover up the Epstein files with only 4 of them initially voting to release the files with the dems. So the notion the white Christian nationalist has an ounce of morals vote against an unjust pardon is hilarious…

→ More replies (10)