Readers Write: The pardon power, THC products, Venezuela boat strikes, the penny

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Regarding President Donald Trump’s blanket pre-emptive pardon of everyone who joined him in whining about the 2020 election: What will it take for Americans to recognize this egregious mistake in our Constitution? The founders ardently professed their aversion to monarchy but were confounded by the problem of a safety valve for criminal justice. Yes, of course, every nation needs some way to override the system in unique cases, where even due process fails. The colonists were British, and they instinctively reverted to their own heritage: the king’s ancient “prerogative of mercy.”

But in a democracy? It was hard to defend even in 1788. Alexander Hamilton tried, arguing (in Federalist No. 74) that mercy should be dispensed by the president alone because “[t]he reflection that the fate of a fellow-creature depended on his sole fiat, would naturally inspire scrupulousness and caution; the dread of being accused of weakness or connivance, would beget equal circumspection ... .” Translation: The president would always use his power with caution because he would his value his reputation for goodness.

Yes, this was the entire rationale for the presidential pardon. It was, even then, a facile vestige of the medieval world. Now, it’s beyond ludicrous. And it has afforded the current president a critical tool in his effort to accrue more power than King George III ever enjoyed.

As a practical matter, we can’t change the Constitution (another big mistake). But we can, and must, change our dormant Congress — and then explore constitutional mechanisms to constrain this invidious power.

Stephen Bubul, Minneapolis

Let me get this straight. Something that is harming our kids needs to be regulated to ensure their safety. So that can be done. Great — I look forward to their proposal to ban assault weapons, binary triggers and bump stocks. I am sure safe-storage laws are in the pipeline as well. I think we will all sleep better knowing that the No. 1 killer of kids ages 1-19 has been dealt with by our federal government.

Becky Dankowski, Minneapolis

•••

McConnell snuck a federal ban on hemp-based THC drinks and edibles into that shutdown bill. He claimed children have been hospitalized, even died, after eating hemp-based products that look like candy. Instead of an outright ban, couldn’t we merely offer thoughts and prayers if that should occur?

Mary Alice Divine, White Bear Lake

When I was a police officer for the city of Los Angeles, of course, we had similar rules: You do not use deadly force against any person, even if you knew they were guilty, unless you or others are in mortal danger. You arrest them and allow a court to decide their fate.

That is why I’m so distraught about what the Trump administration is doing off the coast of South America when our Navy destroys small boats President Donald Trump says are carrying drugs to the U.S. (“Narco-terrorists? Truth is nuanced,” Nov. 9). If I did that as a Navy man in Vietnam, or an officer in Los Angeles, I’d end up in prison. If Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth believe the boats are carrying drugs, intercept the boats and take those onboard into custody, and let higher authority decide their guilt or innocence.

I feel sorry for the sailors on these ships and planes who are following orders to bomb the boats and kill people, people who can’t fight back. They, and the officers assigned over them, must know what they are doing is not only illegal but wrong. We learned after World War II that following orders do not exempt you from your actions.

I beg of the sailors and the officers, all the way up the chain of command, to tell Trump and Hegseth they won’t kill people who may be innocent. Intercept and arrest them, instead.

Ted Storck, Morris, Minn.

A Nov. 1 letter writer asked where the JAG Corps officers are, “who are supposed to advise commanders about the legality or illegality of given tactics” regarding military airstrikes near Venezuela.

The answer is they were fired. Early this year, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth fired the top military lawyers (Judge Advocates General, or JAGs) for the Army and the Air Force and commissioned his personal lawyer as a Navy JAG. Legal experts say these actions have created a chilling effect on legal advice, and suggest the Uniform Code of Military Justice and international law are not a priority for this administration. When the orders were given to attack these unarmed civilian boats and kill the occupants, the admiral in charge of the U.S. Southern Command, which would carry out those orders, chose to retire early, without explanation.

And the decapitation of our military didn’t end with legal advisers. Other firings include the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Navy chief of staff, Naval operations chief, the heads of the U.S. Cyber Command and Defense Intelligence Agency, and others.

Can we assume that replacements for these senior military leaders will be judged for their unquestioned willingness to obey all orders — even those JAG officers may conclude are illegal? And for their loyalty to the American royalty?

David Pederson, Excelsior

“One of the emails the auditors received from a police investigator asked, ‘Could I be subject to discipline if you believe that any answer I provide is incomplete or untruthful?’

“Timmerman said he found the email alarming.

“‘This question itself was incredibly concerning to me, an officer asking if I can be untruthful with the office of city auditor,’ Timmerman said.”

The officer didn’t ask if he could be untruthful. The officer asked if he would be subject to discipline if the auditor believed his answer to be untruthful. The twisting of a quote is problem No. 1 in my opinion. The auditor should be dealing with the facts. Not his perception of the facts.

Teresa Maki, Minneapolis

What Beach and the Trump administration failed to mention is that eliminating the penny will increase demand for nickels, which is projected to cost an additional $78 million. Instead of saving money, taxpayers will actually lose it.

It’s yet another example of the Trump administration’s smoke-and-mirrors approach, touting supposed savings while the real numbers tell a different story.