|Just to be clear:
Perino said she is not aware of any other instance of a pardon reversal, in the Bush administration or others.
If this is allowed to stand, Bush may think he just expanded the office again with another creative (stupid) constitutional interpretation, but instead he has essentially gutted the power of pardons, since your successor can just reverse them.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. I generally hate the pardon power as currently construed because it creates an enormous loophole where the President can order subordinates to commit crimes, and guarantee they won't testify against him by pardoning them. He can effectively run a criminal empire far better than any mafia don with a Judge or two in his pocket ever could.
However, there obviously is some sense to having some kind of Pardon mechanism to alleviate unjust applications of the law, or to reward people who really did redeem themselves in deeds after conviction.
I hope Toussie fights this in court, this kind of major precedent should not simply exist in the realm of whatever Bush's White House Counsel thinks or Bush apologists are able to convince a credulous gullible media of.
Bush is trying to change the understood meaning of the constitution. Just because the founders didn't include "no erasies" at the end of the pardon clause doesn't mean it wasn't implied, and a Court should rule on that (one way or the other).
What I really hope for is that this creates such a mess of the pardon power that it builds the impetus for a constitutional amendment to fix and limit the pardon power (leaving what that might be for another day).