Should power to pardon be limited?

On Thursday, we used this space to provide our early two cents on an apparent effort George Ryan's attorneys will make to persuade President Bush to commute his sentence.

We argued strongly against it, warning that a shortened sentence for a former governor who has yet to apologize for his corruption would invite the public's continued cynicism about our institutions of government.

Reflecting further, we wonder whether the presidential power to pardon and commute sentences should be somehow limited -- whether the pardon power itself has become a source for cynicism about our government.

Limiting that unique power is no easy task. It was granted by the founding fathers as part of the U.S. Constitution, and it's unlikely that it can be limited without a constitutional amendment.

But there's a growing recent history that suggests that difficult procedure at least be debated and considered. Ryan's unthinkable commutation would only be the latest cynical example of its misuse if it came to pass.

Originally, the power was envisioned as a negotiation tool of sorts. "In seasons of insurrection or rebellion," Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers, "there are often critical moments when a well-timed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquility of the common wealth."

Often over the years, that's been exactly what it's been used for. As the University of California's Institute of Governmental Studies pointed out in an essay on the topic in 2001, George Washington pardoned leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion, Andrew Johnson pardoned Confederate soldiers and Jimmy Carter pardoned Vietnam War-era draft evaders.

But in the recent era, it's been used to aid political friends and supporters, and neither party can stand proudly.

In 2005, President Bush commuted the sentence of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, before he spent a day in prison.

In 2001, President Clinton issued a shameful mass of 140 pardons on his last day in office, including one to fugitive financier Marc Rich, whose ex-wife had donated $450,000 to the Clinton presidential library fund.

In 1992, President George H.W. Bush issued six pardons related to the Iran-Contra affair, including one to Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger.

Clearly, there are legitimate uses for presidential pardon powers, and some of those uses would be controversial. But clearly also, the power is subject to abuses that undermine our rule of law.

A widely suggested modification of that power would be for pardon applications to be reviewed by an advisory commission, which would deliberate publicly. Some have even argued, probably too optimistically, that this change would not require a constitutional amendment because the president would not be forced to follow the commission's recommendations.

But that's not the only idea to consider. There are plenty of them out there. Just the other day, the liberal political blog Daily Kos itemized several options in a viewer poll. Among them: giving Congress power with a two-thirds vote to revoke a pardon; prohibiting pardons for anyone holding a public trust; and requiring pardons to be approved by a special committee made up of members of all three branches of government.

The challenge of limiting the presidential pardon power is a difficult one. But as George Ryan's name comes up for consideration, it's a reminder that the matter is worth a healthy public discussion.