I want to second Andy’s excellent piece calling for the repeal of the federal pardon power. As Andy notes, inter alia:

The Constitution’s pardon power is a vestige of a bygone time when there were few federal crimes, it having been assumed at the Founding that law enforcement would remain primarily a state responsibility (the states have pardon processes — in most, clemency may be granted by the governor).

This is true. But the pardon power was controversial even then. During the debates over the ratification of the Constitution, the Anti-Federalists were against it. George Mason thought that it would lead to presidents getting themselves involved in conspiracies and then pardoning his co-conspirators. George Clinton thought that it would lead to “a vile and arbitrary aristocracy or monarchy.” The “Federal Farmer” contended that the power was “absolute” and “unrestrained,” and ought to be “more cautiously lodged, and under some limitations.” In New York, critics tried to do just that — submitting a draft revision to the Constitution that would have required any pardon that was connected with treason to be approved by Congress. The Anti-Federalists lost this fight, but, in my view, they were more right than they were wrong.

This does not mean that the view that prevailed at the Founding was unreasonable. It wasn’t. James Madison’s argument that a president who abused his office could be checked by impeachment makes sense on its own terms, just as more modern arguments that Americans ought to “elect better people” are defensible and fair. The problem is that . . . well, we don’t elect better people. And we don’t impeach and convict presidents, either — over pardons, or anything else besides. And because we don’t do those things, a constitutional remedy seems sensible. In a democratic system, it is legitimate to leave some questions to the public. But when one spots persistent patterns that are caused by flaws in human nature, it is usually a good idea to set them aside from the electoral process. That, by way of example, is why we have mandatory separation of powers, rather than a system in which we elect a dictator for four years and impeach him if he turns out to be bad. Limiting the power enjoyed by the president is a crucial feature of our constitutional order. I’m with Andy in thinking that this principle should extend to the pardon power, too.