Presidential Pardons Should Be Abolished

It is obvious certain presidents of certain parties should not have the right to grant reprieves or pardons. They have the authority under the constitution to do so but this needs amendment. It is fine when a pardon makes sense but some pardons by some presidents of some individuals leave everyone baffled, incensed, dumbfounded and mystified. We see again someone that no one would pardon except the president alone and wonder why one man should be allowed to act like a king instead of an elected official and declare a man innocent that all others declare guilty. It would not be so bad but certain presidents of certain parties tend to grant pardons to enemies of the state and bad people in general instead of those that found themselves victims of judicial over reach as originally envisioned. We need to amend the constitution so the president no longer has the authority to grant pardons because some presidents simply do not wield this power responsibly or even in a civilized manner. The power of the presidential pardon should be amended to allow the president to submit a list of names to congress for consideration of pardon. Congress can then decide whether a pardon makes sense or not. Some presidents of some political parties are simply too stupid to have the power of the pardon. cjpost

Useless Exercises

There are few things more sad to watch than a congressional hearing. Senators and congressmen from both sides of the aisle speak endlessly in the introduction to the festivities for what seems like an eternity about things no one knows because everyone quits paying attention half way through a sermon preached by someone no one likes who uses countless thousands of words to say nothing. One might easily conclude these parasites actually believe their words are of some value to some one, some where, but they aren't. When the questioning finally gets around to the actual person or subject of the hearing, which one could have easily forgotten due to the amount of time wasted getting to the purpose of the hearing in the first place, nothing is accomplished. Democrats seem to have no knowledge of the law or subject matter at hand and ask questions designed to appeal to their supporters and their narrow special interests while republicans focus on the subject very well, but too well. Sometimes acting in a way that is in the best interest of all is not best to some, and it is usually your some, not the other guys. So, as always seems to be the case, you have democrats perfectly willing to hit below the belt and republicans playing by the rules. Republican supporters would easily forgive, and even expect, an occasional below the belt punch in return for receiving so many unfair shots to at least signal some degree of outrage on our behalf. The nature of the whole fiasco means few leave happy because no one ever wins. It is just a show, wasting our money, pretending to show our representatives provide some value in worthless exercises such as these but occasionally an Oliver North or Clarence Thomas comes along and delivers a clean and devastating knock out punch to the democrats and we get our money's worth. So we can always hope. cjpost