George:

While Washington Post Staff Writers claim that seven in ten Americans may have been opposed to a pardon of Scooter Libby, President Bush has never acted in the way President Clinton did – using polls and public opinion to make decisions.

Sometimes doing what’s popular isn’t right and doing what’s right isn’t popular. To be clear, President Bush did not ‘pardon’ Scooter Libby – he commuted his sentence. The rabble-rousers and the media will use the term pardon and commutation interchangeably and they are not the same. Mr. Libby will still be on probation, pay his quarter-million dollar fine and will live his life as a convicted felon.

Article II of the Constitution gives the president broad and unreviewable power to grant "Reprieves and Pardons" for all offenses against the United States. The Supreme Court has ruled that the pardon power is granted "to the president . . ., and it is granted without limit".

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes declared that a pardon is "the determination of the ultimate authority that the public welfare will be better served by the pardon . . ." A president may conclude a pardon or commutation is warranted for several reasons: the desire to restore full citizenship rights, including voting, to people who have served their sentences and lived within the law since; a belief that a sentence was excessive or unjust; personal circumstances that warrant compassion; or other unique circumstances.

We all rattled our cages when President Clinton gave full pardons (not commutations) Marc Rich, Pincus Green and Susan McDougal, but President Clinton did so under the powers given him. President Bush is doing the same and in time another President will do what’s unpopular and we will once again rattle our cages for a few months.

So is it really imperative that Mr. Libby should remain in prison for two and a half years? Would this have really helped his family or us as a society?

Will Lyster (Electronic mail, July 4, 2007)