McClain missed the mark

It was touching to read Lisa McClain’s support for our law enforcement officers but I must have missed the article where she condemned the release and pardon of 1,600 rioters and police abusers (patriots?) by the leader of her party, Trump.

Al Gdula

Saint Clair Shores

Pulling at the thread

Recently, President Trump pardoned convicted fraudsters Todd and Julie Chrisley, whose appeals were not even exhausted, because they were “unfairly targeted.” I have read no specific examples of this “unfairness.” Maybe missed the proof.

Days earlier, Trump pardoned a bribe-accepting Virginia sheriff the day before he was due to report to prison for a ten-year term.

He has also pardoned three other convicted former lawmakers.

To be clear, Trump is not violating any laws, nor the black-letter language of the constitution. He certainly seems to be in conflict with its spirit.

We have a judicial process in this country. Trial. If convicted, appeal. If appeal accepted by that court, possible reversal. If appeals court affirms, seek access to the Supreme Court, where it all ends, one way or another. If the Supreme Court is state level, there is a possibility of trying to get the federal court involved.

Nowhere in these scenarios is the President mentioned as the Ultimate Arbitor, a Solomon overseeing the judiciary, if things don’t go “fairly,” in his opinion (especially for fellow pols).

The president’s intervention in cases, before they have reached finality, particularly without any proof of judge, jury, prosecutorial, defense attorney, etc., misbehavior, is tugging at a thread of the fabric that holds our multi-ethnic, multi-race, multi-religion, (apparently) multi-gender, multi-“ism” society together. That fabric is trust in the fairness of the system.

Since the Constitution allows what the president is doing (although it was unlikely the intent of late 18th century politicians and voters when they approved our founding document), it is time for Congress and the people to step and tighten the rules, through an amendment.

One change that could be implemented, that would likely only be used in egregious situations as those described above, or when pardons are issued to family and friends for apparently no other reason than that they are such, would be a Congressional veto. Within 30 days of Congress’s official notification by the president that (s)he intends to pardon, commute, or otherwise change a conviction and/or a sentence, the House and Senate, voting separately, could, if both agree, nullify the president’s action with a supermajority (60%?, 66.7%?, 75%?) vote. If there is no such vote, it goes through, and Congress can share the glory or derision.

The president has no official role in the amendment process, so it is up to Congress, and eventually the voters, to eliminate this constitutional flaw.

Carman Conforti

Chesterfield Township