The founders never saw him coming.

The Framers’ conception was premised on a fundamental assumption, that the nation could count on prez's to exercise their discretionary authority within the boundaries of expected behavior. That even though the public might disagree with individual exercises of authority the public could be confident that prezs would, generally, be acting for the benefit of the nation and out of motives that were relatively benign and well intentioned.
That is why there are no legal prohibitions on many of things Trump has done in violation of those expectations. Because the Founders never envisioned the rise to power of someone so manifestly corrupt. The ultimate irony being the corruption of the primary firewall they provided against presidential abuses, impeachment. This, by virtue of Trump's iron grip on the political party he leads.........national political parties which were not in existence at the time and not imagined by the Founders.

 

You can always tell a liberal but you can't tell him much.

They did include provisions for impeachment, after all.

 

The ultimate irony being the corruption of the primary firewall they provided against presidential abuses, impeachment. This, by virtue of Trump's iron grip on the political party he leads.........national political parties which were not in existence at the time and not imagined by the Founders.

Did the Founders imagine a time when voting to acquit or convict a prez after an impeachment trial would depend on party loyalty and not evidence, or the best interests of the country? Clearly not. Did they envision a prez having so much contempt for the process that he would obstruct it? No.

Any time you're ready to tell me something of value I'm willing to listen. I'm still waiting.

 

aa

I already provided you a quote that shows the founding fathers did NOT presume that the nation could count on prez's to exercise their discretionary authority within the boundaries of expected behavior.
gg
But you completely ignored it and regurgitated your ludicrous thesis. It is your thesis, right? I find it hard to imagine that this idea could be published anywhere.

 

The quote you provided shows that one man's concern was disregarded by the Founder's leaving the prez with what is assumed to most to be the unchecked power of the pardon.

 

Precisely. These things did occur to them making nonsense of your claim:

"In their day, when they were forming the manner in which we would govern ourselves, certain things never even occurred to them. One was the need to qualify the unbridled power of a prez to issue pardons and commutations by stipulating it could not be used to reward the silence of potential witness' in matters relating to impeachment."

That you don't like the way they resolved the issue is no reason to disparage the Fathers of our Nation.

 

They didn't resolve the issue. They completely disregarded the opinion of one man.

 

Even the Founding Fathers Couldn’t Envision a President Like Trump

"Of course President Trump was acquitted in the Senate yesterday. Any other outcome, any charge against him—not even counting the ones the House of Representatives impeached him for last December—was unthinkable from the first.

It is ridiculous, for instance, to suggest that an American president would ever seek the company of minions and mistresses. There is no way an American president would consider cozying up to Asiatic despots; and he would never, ever, associate with anyone who dispatched murderous henchmen to do his dirty work in Istanbul. Don’t take my word for it: this is what Alexander Hamilton wrote in March 1788 in a scathing and satirical op-ed, known today as Federalist No. 67, which mocked paranoid Americans who feared that, if the US Constitution (which hadn’t been ratified yet) installed a presidency atop this country’s hierarchy, the man who came to power might one day turn tyrant. It was outrageous and “extravagant” to suggest, Hamilton wrote, that a US President, aka Chief Executive, aka Magistrate, might behave as badly as King George III, whom the colonists had just gotten rid of after a bloody seven-year war."
https://lithub.com/even-the-founding-fathers-couldnt-envision-a-president-like-trump/

 

The question is not whether or not he should have done so. The question is does he have that authority. The answer is yes, he does. If you don't like that, get a Constitutional Amendment passed to alter or abolish that authority. But use caution doing so, sometimes the unintended consequences are worse than the original "problem".