I think it’s important to dream of better days in times like this. Possible futures, optimistic ways the next few years might play out. Don’t get lost in the pipe dreams, but occasionally sitting down to fantasize is refreshing in my experience. Plus, it may lead to good ideas! Not that I’d say the following is a good idea. I’m a legal nerd who didn’t go to law school. But it’s fun to think about.

After seeing what President Ford did with the presidential pardon, and more recently Biden and now Trump? (Note: I understand why Biden did what he did, but it still presents the same fundamental problem.) It’s patently clear to me that the power of the pardon should be removed from the Presidency. I understand the historical reasons for it being introduced in the Constitution. The President would be able to ensure that judicial overreach on an individual level would be curtailed, and correct miscarriges of justice that might otherwise be carried out.

Now though, the pardon is seen—by both the populace and after this recent precedent, I would argue the Presidents—as a tool of either politics or protection. Safeguarding your family and friends from retribution. Pardoning your most ardent fans/insurrectionists. For Gerald Ford, opting to repeat the mistake of Reconstruction on a smaller level by pardoning Nixon.

If we manage to retake the federal government from Trump and his sycophants, I’d like to see Congress immediately introduce a constitutional amendment that removes the power of the pardon from the Presidency, and instead grants it to a new department. More of a micro-branch of government, it would be beholden to none of the three existing branches, and it’d be small. Here’s the list of features:

• A council of 4-16 individuals. Each branch of government is able to appoint 1-4 people (with the House and Senate counting as a discrete branch of government in this situation.) The President, Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader, and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would select the appointees.
• Those appointed would serve long, but not lifetime terms. 10-20 years.
• Removing an appointee would require a majority vote from the same positions that appoint new members. Meaning, the President and Speaker of the House could not vote to remove an appointee, but if the Chief Justice or Senate Majority Leader would vote with them, then the removal would be confirmed.
• All appointees would be required to have worked as a public servant at some point in their lives.

To address that last point, I believe that the type of individual who would both be under consideration for a seat on this ‘pardon council’ who would also be a public servant is likely to not be of questionable moral character. Likely, not guaranteed. As we’re learning now, it’s very hard to make a system guaranteed to work. But this way, you’d have a pardon system that’s resilient to changing administrations or even societal shifts. It wouldn’t be beholden to the whims of one person, and the lengthy appointments (with the appropriate pension compensation after they leave office) would help to reduce the likelihood of corruption. Yes, I know Justices Alito and Thomas are what they are. That’s another kink to work out.)

This would likely result in a lot less pardons being issued. I’m not indifferent to that; there’s a lot of innocent people in prison, or even people who have genuinely paid their debt to society but are still locked away. And yet, our current system was used to cut loose over a thousand insurrectionists by the very same man who they staged the insurrection for. It simply cannot continue as-is.

I also realize this has a 99.9% chance of not happening. Not saying 100%, because the past ten years in US politics have taught us that nothing is impossible. But to quote from a great professor:

Also, I haven’t forgotten about my anti-media binging pledge! I’ve been working through the book Exodus: The Archimedes Engine lately, and doing a little character building. This was just a fun thought I had, and not one of my spiraling ones.