Where I stand—Mike O’Callaghan: Power play by Congress

Friday, March 9, 2001 | 3:57 a.m.

Mike O'Callaghan is the Las Vegas Sun executive editor.

WHEN ALL is said and done about presidential pardons, and Republican Dan Burton has stopped frothing at the mouth, Congress should back off. Yes, back off and quit talking about extending its power to influence Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution which, in part, says the president:

"shall have power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

The framers of this most important document debated the granting of absolute power and refused to put any restrictions on it. Actually it's the sole absolute power the Constitution grants the president. The second paragraph of Section 2 goes on to grant other powers to the president with certain conditions such as "with the advice and consent of the Senate. ..."

So to the members of Congress, especially those with their own personal problems, like Dan Burton, I say don't try to extend your powers. If you do, then President George W. Bush should veto it. There aren't enough lightweights in Congress to override this veto designed to protect the executive branch of our government.

Many of us have lived through past presidential pardons that stirred up much debate and gave Congress an opportunity to hold hearings and rant and rave. President Gerald Ford's pardon of former President Richard Nixon for the part he played in Watergate was very explosive but justified. It probably cost Ford his election to President Jimmy Carter in 1976.

What about Carter pardoning the draft dodgers of the Vietnam War? Do you think this made me happy? Or Nixon pardoning Jimmy Hoffa? Is this what gained him the Teamster's endorsement when he won his second term with a landslide victory? Maybe. Maybe not.

There was certainly much speculation when President George Bush, George W.'s father, pardoned President Ronald Reagan's defense secretary, Cap Weinberger, and some others prior to trials for their roles in the Iran-Contra international scandal. Bush, Reagan's vice president for eight years and previously head of the CIA, said he wasn't in "the loop" when the plotting was done. Speculation, and that's all it was, by media and political critics was that the coming trials might be embarrassing and place him closer to the affair than he desired. These pardons were given prior to his leaving office for the entrance of President Bill Clinton in 1993.

All of the speculation and political comment about the presidential pardons that have been granted during the past 30 years have provided grist for the Washington and press rumor mills. Until now the members of Congress have been wise to settle down and not mess with this presidential power.

Incidentally, the heat generated over Clinton advisers being against the Marc Rich pardon should have resulted in just one more yawn. While agreeing with their advice, I also recognize that staff advisers to mayors, governors and presidents are just that -- advisers and nothing more. Neither are they mentioned in Article II or in any other part of our U.S. Constitution.