Cosmic justice

The Constitution confers upon presidents the absolute power and unmitigated authority to pardon anybody whatsoever, for anything in past, present and future time, even if the individual committed crimes with the commander-in-chief's prior knowledge or complicity, or as the consummation of a quid pro quo for prior loyal service.

No matter how damning, implicating or heinous the crime, sentences may be commuted and clemency granted without any standard of justice being met. The grantee need not have been falsely convicted or falsely sentenced, and venality of offense is no disqualification or even barrier to tasteless grace. 

Most macabre is that people can be pardoned in the absence even of an allegation, pending investigation or suspicion that a crime may have been committed. Worse than anti-democratic, it is supernaturally absurd that one can be pardoned for crimes that are abstractions, theoretical, non-existent, un-alleged or in a pre-planning stage.

It is entirely within the realm of possibility that an individual whose pardon extends into the indefinite future, may 10 years later murder and eviscerate somebody without any consequences under the law, since the conscience of society is superseded by presidential command. 

And that agents in the executive branch of government may be deployed by a president to frame or else to non-fictionalize some fictional "evidence" in order to incriminate dissidents or opponents in the tacit expectation that they will never be prosecuted,  because a president will shield them for services rendered.

What is to inhibit future presidents from giving their subordinates "marching orders,” or their henchmen blank checks, to break the law when a guaranteed kiss of salvation will come from a puckered-up president who can even absolve hypothetical abominations?

Compounding this madness is that presidents may have the privilege of pardoning themselves, which would be legally binding, rendering themselves literally "above the law.” This was the view of President Richard Nixon's lawyers, although back then, the Office of Legal Counsel had a conflicting interpretation.

"Dieu et mon droit" — The court of morality has no jurisdiction when our elected sovereign makes such decrees. Guardians of the rule of law might just as well sit in the peanut gallery and read comic books about sacred traditions of jurisprudence, because there is no redress, appeal or counterweight to the clout of presidents with its optional on-call perk of despotism.

In the days when history used to be taught in school, we were told by straight-faced believers that one of the reasons we broke away from the British crown was to escape the tyranny of royal edicts. That notion was a cornerstone of American "exceptionalism.”

It's been 400 years, roughly since the Pilgrims alighted the Mayflower, that British kings or queens could forgive outrageous transgressions and let criminals off the hook, with sweeping immunity to accountability. Modern U.S. presidents can now do it with brazenness, and cynical selectivity.

Although they are not required to show cause for their wanton grace, they often articulate some grounds, to apply a patina of ethical legitimacy.

The "royal prerogative of mercy,” as recently demonstrated by President Joe Biden, was no more dissolute or profligate historically than that of other presidents of both parties. Political philosophies may differ, but there is agreement and blithe conformity on the issue of presidential pardoning power.

The game of dueling presidential pardons is on. Incoming President Donald Trump has his list and outgoing Biden his. 

One of Biden's commutation of sentences was, according to the Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, "absolutely wrong,” as its beneficiary is a corrupt judge who took millions of dollars in kickbacks for dispatching kids to a private jail in the notorious "Kids for Cash" case. Another lucky son-of-a-bitch is a fraudster who rendered hundreds of clients penniless in a "non-violent" crime.

Violence is not always physical. Such as when a person is driven to suicide by destitution. Legal definitions are sometimes perniciously myopic. 

Most recent (and imminent) presidents have generated controversies also. But there are many genuinely sound and compassionate ones also.

Biden has issued far fewer pardons than did Trump, but vastly more commutations. But it's the ghastly folly of giving presidents the might of secular divinity that should gall us and be purged from practice, not the ratio by political parties and personalities.

Apart from pardons yet similar in spirit are some other vestiges of medieval European's prerogatives of magisterial eminence that are no longer invested in monarchs' scepters but still drive the ballpoint pens of American lords on their Oval Office thrones.

Such as "executive orders.”

When Trump took office in 2017, he immediately signed a stack of them. When Biden ascended, he instantly nullified them and signed a stack of his own. On Inauguration Day, Donald Trump will cancel his predecessor's cancellations, and in January 2029, there may be reversals of reversals of reversals. 

It seems that Congress is the body that is thrown a few crumbs of default dominion when the president just can't be bothered or is busy on the golf course or at the beach.

The practice of "recess appointment" bolsters that appearance. Executive authority, whether of presidents, governors or mayors, needs radical surgery and reconstruction.

As we await regime change in Washington, we look to the stars and what do we see? Drones.

There are at least two million drones that don't require a flight plan. Regulations for their use have recently been relaxed. But in some instances, they are more than high-tech toys. They can be used for surveillance of military installations, sensitive industrial compounds and critical infrastructure, and can deliver biological weapons and explosive payloads.

Experts have noted that some of these drones are highly sophisticated and act evasively. They are numerous over many states and have prompted incrementally more urgent calls for inquiry and perhaps intervention. But the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security said that there is "no evidence at this time" that the "sightings pose a national security or public safety threat or have a foreign nexus.”

This is a preposterous statement crafted no doubt by joint communications departments. 

Have they actively sought potential evidence or are they passively sitting back  in reception mode, just in case? If we ever have to defend ourselves against cosseted enemies, it will give a new dimension to "cosmic justice.”