Okay, I don't profess to be an expert in politics, but then you shouldn't have to be to understand the basics of our government.

Here's what I don't get: As I understand it the very concept of a pardon is simply a president's (or governor's) right to make individual exceptions to the carrying out of laws against specific people, for whatever reasons they deem appropriate. The idea being that the framers and future lawmakers couldn't come up with every possible consequence of their actions, and there had to be a safety valve at the top where one person could simply say "this application of the law is wrong" even if the law itself doesn't allow for leeway (like the guy who got life in prison for stealing a slice of pizza on federal grounds, technically his third felony).

So how do either the legislative or judicial branches have the right to turn around and say "well, you can't pardon him"? The presidential pardon is an oversight authority for the judicial system. How can the judicial system then turn around and claim to be an oversight authority on presidential pardons?

What's the point, and where's the line? By definition anyone being pardoned is someone either convicted of a crime or wanted for a crime. How can any branch of the government look at a potential pardon and say "you can free that one and that one, but not that one"? By definition they've already passed a guilty verdict or an indictment on every person who could potentially get a pardon. Isn't that as far as they can go? If nothing else, attempting to overthrow a pardon could be seen as a form of double jeopardy, specifically forbidden in the bill of rights.

Ah, what do I know? I'm still miffed that the guy who sells bumper stickers downstairs from my apartment is still proudly hawking "Bush and Gore make me want to Ralph" and "Why vote for the lesser of two evils? Vote Green!" bumper stickers right next to "Bush stole the presidency" stickers, apparently oblivious to the contradictions...