Congress and the Pardon Power
I am pleased to see reporting in today's Houston Chronicle on members of Congress (both Democrats and Republicans) who are calling on the President to grant a pardon, or commutation of sentence, to two U.S. Border Patrol Agents (Ignacio Ramos and José Alonso Compean) who are serving 11-12 year sentences. If the media reported on congressional influence on the clemency process more often, Americans would have a much better understanding of the pardon power and would understand why no one should ever really expect much of anything like "reform," or even serious "oversight," to come from that branch of the government. Consider the following:
Philander Chase Knox, the U.S. Attorney General from 1901-1904, discovered a culture of favor and expectation in Washington when he began his service in the second term of William McKinley. A member of Congress once approached him to seek a pardon for a robber who was also a “friend” and “great supporter.” When Knox balked at the request, the Congressman blurted angrily, “I understand that each Congressman has a right to two pardons during his term and I want this to be one of mine.”
The anecdote seemed quite "modern" when Drew Pearson, a writer for the Washington Post, uncovered the fact that several members of Congress has secured pardons for constituents in the last-minute pardon blitz of the Eisenhower administration. Pearson noted those "with pull" got pardons and those "equally deserving, without the pull" did not. The list of congressmen doing the "string" pulling "wasn't intended for public consumption," but it included 7 U.S Senators and 19 members of the U.S. House of Representatives. 10 of the congressmen were Republicans and the remainder were largely Southern Democrats.
Knox’s experience also came to mind when it was learned that several current and former members of Congress supported clemency applications in the final days of the Clinton administration. Among them were Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Fred Thompson (R-Tennessee) and former Senator David Pryor (Arkansas). Representatives Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama), Charles Rangel (D- New York), Jim Ramstad (R-Minnesota), Dale E. Kildee (D-Michigan), Danny Davis (D-Illinois), Maxine Waters (D-California), Patrick Kennedy (D- Rhode Island) and Xavier Becerra (D-California) lobbied for pardons as well as former Representatives William Clay (D-Missouri), Esteban Torres (D-California) and Ron Dellums (D-California).
While we will perhaps never really know, it just doesn’t seem implausible to suspect that the individuals whose names happened to be singled out in news reports did not represent the population of Congressmen who supported applications – formally and informally – and employed the privilege of access to high places on behalf of those seeking pardons. I submit this is well worth remembering when one sees congressional committees calling hearings and “investigating” pardoning. If such processes go far enough, there is a better than average chance they will eventually wind up focusing on other members of Congress.
Thus, the clemency problem is a feature of both the executive and legislative branches and there are powerful incentives for Congress to “investigate” lightly, and with great caution. Consider the dog and pony show Rep. John Conyers put on in the House Judiciary Committee a couple of weeks ago. After vowing to do "research" and to provide a "full review" of the Libby commutation, Conyers dramatically labeled his hearing: "The Use and Misuse of Presidential Clemency Power for Executive Branch Officials." He and the Committee members then proceeded to hear zero testimony from individuals conversant with the historical use of pardons for executive branch officials.
It follows that no one should ever really expect a serious movement in Congress to restrict the president’s pardoning power. Numerous proposals of constitutional amendments have been an effective strategy for grabbing the headlines and appearing to be relevant (or a “key player”) in public debate. But, ultimately, such causes have no electoral benefit (and thus casually abandoned) and, if anything, true reform would only create a more restrictive environment for members of Congress.
Philander Chase Knox, the U.S. Attorney General from 1901-1904, discovered a culture of favor and expectation in Washington when he began his service in the second term of William McKinley. A member of Congress once approached him to seek a pardon for a robber who was also a “friend” and “great supporter.” When Knox balked at the request, the Congressman blurted angrily, “I understand that each Congressman has a right to two pardons during his term and I want this to be one of mine.”
The anecdote seemed quite "modern" when Drew Pearson, a writer for the Washington Post, uncovered the fact that several members of Congress has secured pardons for constituents in the last-minute pardon blitz of the Eisenhower administration. Pearson noted those "with pull" got pardons and those "equally deserving, without the pull" did not. The list of congressmen doing the "string" pulling "wasn't intended for public consumption," but it included 7 U.S Senators and 19 members of the U.S. House of Representatives. 10 of the congressmen were Republicans and the remainder were largely Southern Democrats.
Knox’s experience also came to mind when it was learned that several current and former members of Congress supported clemency applications in the final days of the Clinton administration. Among them were Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Fred Thompson (R-Tennessee) and former Senator David Pryor (Arkansas). Representatives Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama), Charles Rangel (D- New York), Jim Ramstad (R-Minnesota), Dale E. Kildee (D-Michigan), Danny Davis (D-Illinois), Maxine Waters (D-California), Patrick Kennedy (D- Rhode Island) and Xavier Becerra (D-California) lobbied for pardons as well as former Representatives William Clay (D-Missouri), Esteban Torres (D-California) and Ron Dellums (D-California).
While we will perhaps never really know, it just doesn’t seem implausible to suspect that the individuals whose names happened to be singled out in news reports did not represent the population of Congressmen who supported applications – formally and informally – and employed the privilege of access to high places on behalf of those seeking pardons. I submit this is well worth remembering when one sees congressional committees calling hearings and “investigating” pardoning. If such processes go far enough, there is a better than average chance they will eventually wind up focusing on other members of Congress.
Thus, the clemency problem is a feature of both the executive and legislative branches and there are powerful incentives for Congress to “investigate” lightly, and with great caution. Consider the dog and pony show Rep. John Conyers put on in the House Judiciary Committee a couple of weeks ago. After vowing to do "research" and to provide a "full review" of the Libby commutation, Conyers dramatically labeled his hearing: "The Use and Misuse of Presidential Clemency Power for Executive Branch Officials." He and the Committee members then proceeded to hear zero testimony from individuals conversant with the historical use of pardons for executive branch officials.
It follows that no one should ever really expect a serious movement in Congress to restrict the president’s pardoning power. Numerous proposals of constitutional amendments have been an effective strategy for grabbing the headlines and appearing to be relevant (or a “key player”) in public debate. But, ultimately, such causes have no electoral benefit (and thus casually abandoned) and, if anything, true reform would only create a more restrictive environment for members of Congress.
posted by P.S. Ruckman, Jr. | 12:20 PM
<< Home