Constitutional Amendment re Pardons

[Paul Finkelman]

that is true but the reality is that many of those who vote on impeachment had already
been either voted out of office or stepped down, and as we know, it was their votes that
put the impeachment over the top; without the lame duck votes to impeach there would have
been no impeachment.
PF

Todd Zywicki wrote:

> There is a distinction.  Unless the entire House decides to resign en
> masse, those voting on impeachment have to stand for reelection in 2
> years.  An outgoing President is not subject to popular control, which
> is arguably the only limit on the President's pardon power (in that
> impeachment is no longer an option for an outgoing President).
>
> -Todd Zywicki
> GMU Law
>
> Paul Finkelman wrote:
> >
> > I ws not on the list when it happened, but did those who are complaining about lame
> > duck pardons also complain about the lame duck impeachment?  Or is this once again,
> > as with hanging chads, an example of politics as usual being offered up on the guise
> > of constitutional theory.  And while we are at it, what about pardoning those who
> > appointed you to office in the first place?  Does that violate some standard of
> > ethics?  ie:  Ford pardoning Nixon.
> >
> > --
> > Paul Finkelman
> > Chapman Distinguished Professor
> > University of Tulsa College of Law
> > 3120 East Fourth Place
> > Tulsa, OK  74104
> >
> > 918-631-3706
> > Fax 918-631-2194
> >
> > E-mail:  paul-finkelman at utulsa.edu

--
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East Fourth Place
Tulsa, OK  74104

918-631-3706
Fax 918-631-2194

E-mail:  paul-finkelman at utulsa.edu