by Nomad
"In Order to Form a More Perfect Union"
Back in the summer of 1787, delegates of the Constitutional Convention came together in Philadelphia to draft the Constitution and thereby, address the problems of a weak central government under the Articles of Confederation. There were many vested interests in the crowd of delegates and getting the representatives from each colony to agree was not an easy task.
It was, in effect, a contractual agreement among the 13 original states of the United States of America a set of clearly written rules for how the states' "league of friendship" would be organized. The Articles had stressed the sovereignty of individual member states, a prerequisite for any agreement.
By 1787, it was time to draw up new rules to strengthen the federal government. Not everybody was so keen to enter into a union without a serious examination of the fine print.
A Weighty Objection
One of those delegates, American planter, politician, George Mason expressed his concern about many of the features of the draft.He felt, for example, that the Constitution required some kind of provision for the immediate end to the slave trade. (Ironically, although he opposed the slave system in Virginia, Mason himself was a major slaveholder.)
He also had misgivings about another provision- the pardon power granted to the US president. Mason unequivocally opposed the provision. In Document 6 - Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention 18 June 1788, Mason wrote:
Now, I conceive that the President ought not to have the power of pardoning, because he may frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself. It may happen, at some future day, that he will establish a monarchy, and destroy the republic. If he has the power of granting pardons before indictment, or conviction, may he not stop inquiry and prevent detection? The case of treason ought, at least, to be excepted. This is a weighty objection with me."
The power of presidential pardons, it was pointed out during the debate, that governors have such pardons and there was little objection to that. Mason was not impressed. Such powers he said could become a threat to democracy in the wrong hands. As Mason pointed out:
"If [the presidenti] was an ambitious man, he might make dangerous use of it."The delegate in the debate, James Madison, assured Mason that his fears were groundless. After all, there were other remedies for the corrupt president. Namely, the provision for the presidential impeachment.
There is one security in this case to which Gentlemen may not have adverted:–If the President be connected in any suspicious manner with any persons, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter himself; the House of Representatives can impeach him:–They can remove him if found guilty:–They can suspend him when suspected, and the power will devolve on the Vice-President: Should he be suspected also, he may likewise be suspended till he be impeached and removed, and the Legislature may make a temporary appointment. This is a great security.
Mason was, evidently, not convinced. For this and other reasons, he refused to sign the Constitution.
More than 230 years ago. Mason's anticipation of our current situation- Trump's pardon spree- shows how well this particular Founding Father understood the danger of a power-hungry and lawless president, assisted a party willing to avert its eyes to his corruption.