Eliminate the President's Monarchical Privilege

President George W. Bush's recent move to commute the prison sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby follows historical precedent and constitutional prerogative. Nearly every recent president -- including Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton -- used executive authority to save former associates from legal sanction, especially prolonged imprisonment. Democratic and Republican occupants of the White House have invoked the clear and unmistakable language of Article 2, Section 2 in the Constitution which states that the president "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States."

On this issue George W. Bush has acted like other presidents, within the bounds of the Constitution, and that is exactly the problem. The presidential prerogative for reprieves and pardons is a historical vestige from monarchical assumptions about government leadership. Without much serious debate, the framers of the Constitution gave the president this power because they believed it was necessary for the stature and exercise of executive authority. They had stripped the president of most traditional monarchical rights -- to spend money, to raise armies, and to declare war. All of these powers resided in the Congress, not the presidency, according to the Constitution. To assure that the president was not too weak, the framers allocated the prerogative for reprieves and pardons to the chief executive. The text of the Constitution, in fact, offers the president few other specific and independent capabilities.

More than two centuries later we need not worry about a weak president. Since at least the New Deal the power of the White House over domestic and foreign policy has grown enormously. Today the president spends money, raises armies, and sends our troops to war with little effective congressional oversight. The recent actions of George W. Bush and his administration have only furthered this trend toward executive dominance over the daily operations of government. The last thing this or any other president needs is a default monarchical privilege to bolster White House power.

The prerogative to reprieve and pardon has now become a threat not only to checks and balances, but also to effective policy-making. Wealthy donors (like Marc Rich) and perjured aides (like Scooter Libby) face few deterrents against corrupting policy deliberations, so long as they are assured that the president will rescue them from legal prosecution. They can buy people off, undermine government agents, and lie to the public without personal repercussion. How can we ever expect our elected representatives to make fair and thoughtful decisions in this laissez-faire criminal environment?

The Constitution is a living document. Our nation's system of checks and balances requires constant adjustment. Now is the time, in light of greatly expanded presidential authority, to eliminate the executive prerogative for reprieves and pardons. The White House no longer needs this monarchical privilege to buttress its stature. A provision initially designed to protect the balance of power in our government has now, two centuries later, become a contributor to harmful imbalance and corruption. For the sake of policy and representativeness, we need a constitutional amendment to remove this prerogative from the president. I hope some of the presidential candidates in 2008 will champion this important issue.