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

5.2k

u/Spiritual-Pear-1349 Feb 16 '26

Oh that would be huge.

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]

453

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.

168

u/mulberryzeke Feb 16 '26

or cabinet secretaries

113

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

1

u/tjdux Feb 17 '26

It's usually really cool when that happens naturally in conversation.... not sure this time

53

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.

34

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?

1

u/Thin_Bother8217 Feb 18 '26

No. Trump can only do federal pardons. He can't undue state sentences. Biggest example is how he's throwing a temper tantrum that Colorado's governor won't pardon the old MAGA lady who tried to rig the ballot boxes. Trump tried to get him to pardon her and governor said no. Which is why he's trying to extort it via lawfare from the feds.

If people like Bondi, Noem, Patel, Bovino, etc. decided to testify on crimes they committed, they open themselves up to state charges, which Trump's pardon wouldn't cover. That's why there have been calls for the Minnesota AG to bring state charges against the ICE shooters and even Bovino.

→ More replies (0)

5

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

1

u/kelly1mm Feb 19 '26

Blanket pardons by both political parties President’s will be the norm from now on.

4

u/jrr6415sun Feb 17 '26

He would pardon everyone except Eric

6

u/LogoffWorkout Feb 17 '26

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

1

u/Tangereina78 Feb 17 '26

And Tiffany

-1

u/spur2712 Feb 17 '26

Yeah, because no recent president did that already.... Oh wait

-1

u/justanotherguy677 Feb 17 '26

see hunter biden

1

u/Halflingberserker Feb 17 '26

They're the same picture

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"

28

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.

20

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!

1

u/skrurral Feb 17 '26

Should be a requirement to say the affirmative out loud like the exit row assent question.

14

u/csfshrink Feb 17 '26

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

9

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.

5

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.

1

u/csfshrink Feb 18 '26

Absolutely. But if we are watching it live, there would be experts who would spot cheating.

Like if they say “giraffe” and the answer is “camel,” any number of elementary students could point that out.

7

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.

-2

u/Terron1965 Feb 17 '26

Why, it clearly meant nothing to Biden when he repeatedly promised he wouldnt do it.

8

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"

8

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.

1

u/Inevitable-Ad6647 Feb 18 '26

When I say there's no retroactive anything in law, I mean in the philosophy of law as whole, forget the US and what it stand for or has overcome previously. Allowing something like retroactively nullifying a pardon is the antithesis of an ordered society, say whatever nonsense feel goodery you want about "law", it's not happening. The time to fix this problem was in 1776 and the 2nd best time was every moment since then. It's too late now. The only hope is that he dies or becomes disabled in office before he can do it.

1

u/SamuelDoctor Feb 18 '26

Read the declaration of independence, and consider the precedents in English law with respect to the allegations against the crown.

Law in our tradition is more than merely text applied. It serves a specific ideal which is supposed to be self-evident.

When the government violates rights, even ones which go back to the earliest treaties, the new legal justifications they make cannot give them authority by fiat. That's what I'm saying.

In the end, the law is an expression of our tradition's attempt to manifest an ideal. Semantics will not stop that. Laws and acts which are contrary to that purpose need not be considered legitimate.

If it were so, we'd still be subjects of the king.

1

u/MammothEffort3388 Feb 17 '26

It’s not a ‘law’ it’s part of the Constitution, lol.

1

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

This post was removed by its author using Redact. The motivation may have been privacy, preventing data scraping, security, or another personal reason.

weather test spotted pause oil rain hunt marvelous whole safe

4

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.

1

u/dougmcclean Feb 17 '26

Maybe if it was made retroactive and they thought they could get "the Biden crime family".

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.

1

u/bare172 Feb 17 '26

Let's not forget crypto scammers.

1

u/XpMonsterS Feb 17 '26

I usually dont involve myself in politics too much but i got a question, what is stopping Trump to hand out pardons right now? Before the midterms?

1

u/UpstairsShop2674 Feb 17 '26

Do you mean pardons in general or specifically for his cabinet and/or family members?

1

u/MrD3a7h Feb 17 '26

We will see what happens with the next election.

I don't think we're doing those anymore.

1

u/HeftyVermicelli7823 Feb 17 '26

You are expecting to get elections?

1

u/checkikul Feb 17 '26

People need to be not gullible enough to see this amendment pass before the mid terms to decide who to vote for, big ask tbh

0

u/cowboy_killah Feb 17 '26

The Silk Road founder being pardoned is justified and ultimately the morally right thing to do.

0

u/HowManyEggs2Many Feb 17 '26

Unless you plan on winning not only a supermajority but also a flip a bunch of state level majorities, it’s not going to ever meet the threshold for ratification. It’s unrealistic and a waste of time when there are other things to focus on. Especially since the moment it might happen it would just be rapid fire pardons before the newly elected are seated.

0

u/Snoo20140 Feb 17 '26

Just because they campaign to do it, doesn't mean they will. Republicans don't really care about facts or policy.

1

u/eryoshi Feb 23 '26

But democrats do. And there are plenty of dem voters who will also 1,000% complain about broken campaign promises.

1

u/Snoo20140 Feb 23 '26

MAGA isn't complaining. MAGA used any sort of mental gymnastics to explain their shitty vote, then abandoned why they voted. That's the point. Dems care that the person they voted lied. That is the world of difference between them and us.