Original Argument: The Lost Chapters. Translated by Joshua Charles

Number 74

The Command of the Military and Naval Forces, and the Pardoning Power of the Executive

Alexander Hamilton

New York Packet

Tuesday, March 25, 1788

The President of the United States is to be the:

“…commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states when called into the actual service of the United States.”[1]

In addition to being in line with all the general precedents of the state constitutions as far as this subject is concerned, it is also so obviously appropriate that it doesn’t require anymore explanation or defense.  Even the state constitutions which have combined the Executive with some sort of executive council (to approve of his decisions) have, for the most part, concentrated the military authority on him alone.  Of all the duties and concerns of government, waging war is unique in that what it requires can only be provided by concentrating the power of waging it into a single hand.  The waging of a war implies having the ability to direct the whole strength of a nation, and the power of directing and using this national strength is part of the unusual and essential definition of Executive authority.

“The President may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices.”[2]

This statement merely states the obvious, since the right which it gives the President is automatically part of being President in the first place.  He is authorized “to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.”[3] Both the interests of humanity and good policy concur in concluding that the harmless ability of granting pardons should be as little restricted as possible.  Criminal codes all over the world tend to be so necessarily severe that without easy access to exceptions in cases of unfortunate guilt, justice would always appear to be too bloody and cruel.  Since the sense of personal responsibility increases as the number of people who hold that responsibility decreases, we can safely assume that a single man (the President) would be more than capable of taking into account the personal motives and circumstances of certain individuals which might not have been able to hold water when put up against the severity of the law.  Additionally, he would be the one least susceptible to simply trying to protect whomever he wished from the just requirements of the law.  The idea that the fate of a fellow human being would be completely dependent on his decision would naturally inspire the President to be very meticulous and cautious when deciding who to pardon and why.  His desire to not be accused of weakness, or of tacitly encouraging bad behavior, would also cause him to be cautious, but for entirely different reasons.  On the other hand, since men generally derive confidence in numbers, they might encourage each other to be hard headed in deciding whom to pardon, which would make them less fearful of being accused of inappropriately showing mercy.  Because of reasons like this, it appears to me that one man would be more capable of dealing out mercy on behalf of the government than a group of men would be.

If I am not mistaken, the wisdom of giving the President the power of pardoning has only been objected to as it relates to the crime of treason.[4] It has been argued that the power to pardon treason should have required the agreement of one, or both Houses of Congress.  I won’t deny that there are good reasons to require the involvement of one or both Houses of Congress in dealing with pardoning treason.  Since treason is a crime which is directed at society as a whole, once it has been lawfully determined that treason was committed, it would seem appropriate to require the consent of Congress in order to show mercy towards whoever was convicted.  This should actually be how pardoning treason should be dealt with, since it is not entirely possible to rule out a conspiracy of some sort on the part of the President.  But there are also many significant problems with such a plan.  It is beyond doubt that a single man of wisdom and good sense would be much more capable of balancing the arguments for and against pardoning treason than any given group of people would be, no matter the size.  We must also remember that treason typically involves seditious actions as well, as has recently occurred in Massachusetts.[5] In every such case, it is likely that the representatives of the People would be tainted by the same sort of spirit which gave rise to the sedition or treason in the first place.  With similar feelings on both the side of the People and their representatives, it is likely that the desire to do favors for friends, as well as mutual sympathy for either the condemned person (or people) would be enough to garner a vote for a pardon in Congress, when what may actually be needed was a terrifying example of what happens to those who commit such crimes.  On the other hand, if the sedition was the result of things which aroused the anger of the majority party, then they would most likely be unwilling to grant mercy, even when good policy dictated that such mercy should be granted.  But the primary argument in favor of giving the President the full power to pardon is this: during a time of insurrection or rebellion, there are often critical moments when a well-timed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels could very well reestablish peace and tranquility.  However, moments like that are few and far between, and if they are not taken advantage of, they may never come again.  The slow process of convening Congress in order to approve any offer of a pardon may allow golden opportunities such as this to slip through our fingers.  The loss of a week, a day, or even an hour may sometimes be fatal.

Some might say that, as a compromise, the President could occasionally be given the power to pardon in certain situations that may require such a power.  My answer to that would be this: first, it is questionable that under a limited Constitution, such a power could be delegated by a law; and secondly, in general, it would be unwise to extend even the prospect of a pardon before it was even required by any particular situation.  An action like that would tend to make the government appear weak, and might even embolden those who are guilty of sedition or treason.

Publius


[1]United States Constitution: Article II, Section 2, clause 1

[2]United States Constitution: same reference as previous footnote

[3]United States Constitution: same reference as previous footnote

[4]United States Constitution: Article III, Section 3

[5]Shays’ Rebellion (1787): Explanation found in Federalist No. 6.

For the first time in the history of "The Glenn Beck Program," former President Donald Trump joined Glenn to give his take on America's direction under President Joe Biden compared to his own administration. He explained why Biden's horrific Afghanistan withdrawal was "not even a little bit" like his plan, and why he thinks it was "the most embarrassing event in the history of our country."

Plus, the former president gave his opinion on China's potential takeover of Bagram Air Base, the Pakistani Prime Minister, and Gen. Mark A. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Glenn asked President Trump how similar the Biden administration's withdrawal from Afghanistan was to his administration's plan.

"Not even a little bit," Trump answered. "We had a great plan, but it was a very tenuous plan. It was based on many conditions. For instance, you can't kill American soldiers. ... You have to understand, I did want to get out. But I wanted to get out with dignity, and I wanted to take our equipment out. And I didn't want soldiers killed. ... What [Biden] did was just indefensible. He took the military out first and he left all the people. And then we became beggars to get the people out. I had a plan to get them out very quickly. But first, the Americans would go out."

Trump told Glenn that his plan included maintaining Bagram Air Base and explained why he would not have left "a single nail" behind in Afghanistan for the Taliban to seize.

"We were going to keep Bagram open," he explained. "We were never going to close that because, frankly, Bagram is more about China than it is about Afghanistan. It was practically on the other border of China. And now we've lost that. And you know who is taking it over? China is taking it over. We spend $10 billion to build that base. It's got the longest, most powerful runways in the world. And China has now got its representatives there and it looks like they'll take it over. Glenn, it's not believable what's happened. You know, they have Apache helicopters. These are really expensive weapons, and they have 28 of them. And they're brand-new. The latest model."

Glenn mentioned recent reports that Gen. Milley, America's top military officer, made "secret phone calls" to his counterpart in China while President Trump was in office.

"I learned early on that he was a dope," Trump said of Gen. Milley. "He made a statement to me — and I guarantee that's what happened to Biden — because I said, 'We're getting out of Afghanistan. We have to do it.' And I said, 'I want every nail. I want every screw. I want every bolt. I want every plane. I want every tank. I want it all out, down to the nails, screws, bolts ... I want every single thing. And he said, 'Sir, it's cheaper to leave it than it is to bring it.'

"The airplane might have cost $40 million, $50 million ... millions and millions of dollars. So, you think it's cheaper to leave it than to have 200 pilots fly over and fly all the equipment out? ... I said, you've got to be nuts. I mean, give me a tank of gas and a pilot and I just picked up a $40 million-dollar airplane. It was amazing. So, I learned early that this guy is a dope. But what he did, is he hurt our country ... and he shouldn't have been allowed to do it. And bad things should happen to him."

Watch the video clip below to catch more of the conversation or find the full interview on BlazeTV:


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

In a shocking but underreported conversation ahead of the G7 Speakers' meeting in London last week, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi admitted that the administration knows China is committing "genocide" against the Uyghurs in the Xinjiang region, but thinks working with the regime on climate change is more important.

On the radio program, an outraged Glenn Beck dissected Pelosi's speech and broke down how — along with the Biden administration's abandonment of Americans in Afghanistan, and the Democrat decision to follow measures of medical "equity" — the far left is revealing how little they really care about human life.

Glenn played a video clip of Pelosi making the following statement:

We've always felt connected to China, but with their military aggression in the South China Sea, with their continuation of genocide with the Uyghurs in Xinjiang province there, with their violation of the cultural, linguistic, religious priority of Tibet, with their suppression of democracy in Hong Kong and other parts of China, as well – they're just getting worse in terms of suppression, and freedom of speech. So, human rights, security, economically [sic].

Having said all of that ... we have to work together on climate. Climate is an overriding issue and China is the leading emitter in the world, the U.S. too and developed world too, but we must work together.

"We have Nancy Pelosi admitting the United States of America knows that they're not only committing [genocide], they're continuing to commit it. Which means, we've known for a while," Glenn noted. "And what does she say? She goes on to say, yes, they're committing genocide against the Uyghurs, but having said that, I'm quoting, 'the overriding issue,' is working together on climate change.

"Would we have worked with Hitler on climate change? Would we have worked with Hitler on developing the bomb? Would we have worked with Hitler on developing the Autobahn? Would we have worked with Hitler on his socialized medicine? Would we have worked with Hitler on any of his national, socialist ideas?" he asked.

"The answer is no. No. When you're committing genocide, no! She said 'we have to work together on climate,' because climate is the 'overriding issue.' The overriding issue? There is no way to describe this mindset. That, yes, they are killing an entire group of people because of their ethnicity or religion. They are systematically rounding them up, using them for slave labor, and killing them, using their organs and selling them on the open market. They are nothing more than cattle. For us to recognize it and do nothing about it is bad enough. But to say, 'we recognize it, but we have bigger things to talk to them about,' is a horror show."

Glenn went on to urge Americans to "stand up together in love, peace, and harmony," or risk watching our nation become the worst plague on human life yet.

Watch the video clip below to hear more from Glenn:


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The fall of Lehman Brothers in 2008 marked the largest bankruptcy filing in U.S. history and economic collapse was felt throughout the world. But now China's own version of Lehman Brothers, Evergrande, is teetering closer and closer to that edge, too. On the radio program Thursday, Glenn Beck gave the latest update and predicted how it will affect Asian markets and what it could mean for America's economy.

Glenn explained why he believes a major collapse that is happening now in China will have a cascading effect into a "controlled collapse," a managed decline that will dramatically change America's economy and the way we all live.

"You will not recognize your lifestyle. Hear me," Glenn warned. "And that's not a right-left thing. That's a right-wrong thing. We're on the wrong track. I'm telling you now, there's new information and you are not going to recognize the American lifestyle. ... It could happen tomorrow. It could happen in five years from now, but it will happen. We are headed for a very different country. One where you don't have the rights that you have. And you certainly don't have the economic privileges that Americans are used to."

"The same thing that happened in 2008 is now happening in China," Glenn continued. "This time, it's going to take everything down. When it collapses, it will take everything down."

Watch the video below to hear Glenn break down the details:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Justin Haskins, editorial director of the Heartland Institute, joined Glenn Beck on the radio program to expose a shocking conversation between two Great Reset proponents — Klaus Schwab, chairman of the World Economic Forum, and Christine Lagarde, president of the European Central Bank (Europe's equivalent to the Fed).

The way Schwab and Lagarde discuss the role central banks should play in establishing societal norms, determining your way of life, and defending against potential crisis is proof that the Great Reset is upon us, Justin explained. And the scariest part is that they're not even trying to hide it. The entire, unbelievable conversation has been published on the WEF website, which you can read here.

Glenn read an excerpt from the conversation:

Christine Lagarde: At the ECB, we have now wrapped up and concluded our strategy review, which was the first one in 17 years. And I was blessed to have an entire Governing Council unanimously agree that the fight against climate change should be one of the considerations that we take when we determine monetary policy. So at least the European Central Bank is of the view that climate change is an important component in order to decide on monetary policy. ...

Can we arrive at that trade-off between fighting climate change, preserving biodiversity and yet securing enough growth to respond to legitimate demands of the population? And my first answer, Klaus, to be firm, is that to have a way of life, we need life. And in the medium term, we do have major threats on the horizon that could cause the death of hundreds of thousands of people. So we have to think life, first. We have to think way of life, second. ...

So we have to think life, first. We have to think way of life, second. How can we come together to make sure that we secure the first priority, which is life, and also protect the way of life that people have? And make sure that the cost of it is not so high for some people, that they just cannot tolerate it. I think that the trade-off that we reach will probably require some redistribution, because it is clear that the most exposed people, the less privileged people are those that are going to need some help.

"Do you understand, America, what that means?" Glenn exclaimed. "You have elites, that you never elected, that are having these meetings ... deciding what is a legitimate need for you. And telling you that your needs are going to go away in your lifetime. You may not see a time where you get wants again. Just your needs are going to be addressed. Am I reading this wrong?"

"This is absolutely what is being said here," Justin agreed. "She's very clear that we need to make sure that way of life is second to life. We have to save all these people, hundreds of thousands of people are going to die from this supposedly existential threat of climate change. And their wants, and their desires, and their quality of living, all of that has to come second."

"This is a central bank saying this. This is not an elected official, who is accountable directly to the people. This is a central bank saying, we're going to print money. We're going to use monetary policy, to impose these ideas, to rework society in order to accomplish our goals," Justin added, addressing Lagarde's call for "some redistribution."

Will Great Reset elites — not elected by the U.S. — soon be dictating to the rest of the world? Watch the video clip below to hear Glenn and Justin break it down:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.