
Some Democrats aren’t happy with Joe Biden’s decision to pardon his son, Hunter. Using the powers in Article II “further erodes Americans’ faith that the justice system is fair and equal for all,” said Sen. Michael Bennet. “This was an improper use of power; it erodes trust in our government and emboldens others to bend justice to suit their interests,” added Sen. Gary Peters. Virginia senator Gerry Connolly even suggested a constitutional amendment. “At the very least, we’ve got to circumscribe [the pardon powers] so that you don’t get to pardon relatives, even if you believe passionately that they’re innocent or their cause is just.”
To Bennet’s point. Jesus, can I give this guy my decade-old copy of The New Jim Crow for Christmas? Anyone who thinks the justice system is fair and equal lives in an alternate universe. Then again, Bennet is a senator, so his job (and perhaps sanity) depends on him purging universal and equal rights from any conception of “fair and equal.” The fact that the 20 states have a larger population than Bennet’s state of Colorado but the same number of seats in the Senate isn’t, I don’t know, unfair and unequal; it’s just “what the founders intended.” No one working in the Senate (yes, including Bernie Sanders) knows what democracy means.
To Peter’s point. The problem isn’t Joe Biden; it’s Article II. We should be less concerned about an individual’s interests and more concerned with a constitutional system that allows politicians to avoid democratic oversight for the simple reason that no democratic oversight exists. Presidents “bend justice to suit their interests” because the Constitution enables them. Then they add a mocking line about “hoping Americans will understand” to add salt to the wound, knowing full well that it doesn’t matter if we understand because the Constitution denies us the power to do anything. What’s going to happen, impeachment? That’s impossible, too.
This brings us to Connolly’s suggested constitutional amendment. In some ways, it’s a refreshingly common-sense idea: Article II has been used to pardon Trump’s friends and Biden’s family (Nixon and the leaders of the Iran-Contra scandal apparently weren’t bad enough). Trump has said he will pardon the January 6 attackers once he is back in office, and thanks to the Constitution, there’s nothing anyone can do to stop him. So why not change the rule? The system is broken, so let’s fix it!
In other ways, Connolly’s idea is frustratingly simple-minded and out-of-date. Many, including Daniel Lazare, Aziz Rana, and Richard Albert, long ago concluded that Article V no longer works. “In the last half-century alone,” noted Albert, a political scientist at UT Austin, “democratic reformers have proposed thousands of amendments to make the Constitution more equal, more inclusive, and more just. But each proposal has failed, few ever making it beyond the point of initiation.” With a mile-long track record of failures (27 wins in approximately 11,000 attempts) and the Senate only growing more unequal, there’s no reason to think the Constitution will be changed through its own devices. Connolly might have his head in the clouds (or the sand — pick your metaphor), but the rest of us don’t have to follow along.
Hence, the demand for a constituent assembly elected by universal and equal suffrage in which, as Lazare explained, “‘we the people’ revamp the political structure not according to the complicated rules outlined in Article V, but based on popular sovereignty, which is to say the right of the people to act on their own authority to improve their condition.” However well-intentioned, everything short of this demand is naive and a distraction from the work that needs to be done. The Constitution won’t solve its own problems. It also can’t be ignored. Only the organized working class can win the universal and equal rights we need.
One more thing: Once we get rid of the pardon, can we stop the turkey show on Thanksgiving? It’s an insult to people who deserve to be free.