An Amendment to Limit the Presidential Pardon Power

The Problem

Many people have found alarming the use of presidential pardons and commutation for entirely political purposes, a use which subverts the judicial system and often undermines goals of fairness and justice. Though Trump has been widely criticized for his highly partisan pardons, commutations, and threats to pardon himself, other presidents have received smaller measures of disapproval for similar reasons. The fact that many pardons are saved until the end of a president’s term to limit the political damage that might result is instructive in this regard.

 

A Proposed Amendment

Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) reintroduced an amendment for consideration in January, 2025, and it is worthwhile. See his congressional page for his comments and the amendment text. It covers who may be pardoned and places off limits a number of people connected to the president by blood, employment, or political affiliation.

An addition to this amendment should be considered. Suggested text follows.

1. Presidential pardons or commutations shall be approved or declined by a commission of five members appointed by the Congress from its membership. The term in office shall be three years, and members may be reappointed once. Vacancies shall be filled by the Congress by special appointment to finish the term.
2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

 

Comments

Cohen’s amendment deserves to pass and be ratified. Adding to it a mechanism of accountability outside the executive branch makes abuses less likely, even if one party dominates Congress, simply because additional leaders would be accountable for unpopular or unethical pardons and commutations.

The foundation of a power to pardon or commute rests upon several tenets: first, that sometimes mercy is needed to counter too harsh a ruling; second, that errors can occur and should be speedily corrected; and third, that the offer of a pardon might more quickly restore peace in a time of great turmoil. These and other considerations are discussed in The Federalist 74 by Hamilton.

Experience, however, has shown that this power (like any other) can be abused, and that no safeguards exist in law to constrain it. Cohen’s amendment, and the suggested additional text above, would rein in this unbridled and sometimes wildly applied power.

A Presidential Recall Amendment

 The Problem

It’s been clear at least since the first attempt to impeach Trump that partisan politics renders the impeachment process and Amendment 25 provisions about removing a president for disability ineffective. Those well-intentioned laws have no realistic chance of succeeding if a party places itself above the national interest as has been the case recently.

In fact, historically, no president has ever been removed by impeachment or an Amendment 25 process. Arguably, Andrew Johnson should have been removed though the articles of impeachment in 1867 were far more political than factual. The impeachments of Clinton and Trump fell well short of the two-thirds Senate vote needed, regardless of the merits of the cases against them, and were determined more by partisan affiliation than by any other cause. And, no Amendment 25 process has ever been attempted; whether one was ever seriously discussed behind the scenes is unknown. The mechanisms in place to remove a disastrous or problematic president have proven not to be viable so far. The one case where the threat of a successful impeachment forced a resignation, Nixon’s, was at best an indirect success.

Since the constitutional mechanisms we have are ineffective especially in partisan, polarized political culture, we need another option. A direct democracy approach would have a credible chance of success without being too easy and thus subject to abuse. The proposal below would not replace Amendment 25 or the Constitution’s impeachment process, but would add a mechanism designed to circumvent the partisan fawning of Congress or the Cabinet over a deeply flawed leader.

 

A Proposed Amendment Text

1. Congress, upon the submission of petition signatures from twenty percent of the number of citizens over eighteen of the United States as determined by the Census Bureau, shall set a date for a presidential recall election to be held within two months.
2. Alternatively, Congress, on the submission of resolutions from state legislatures including the District of Columbia Council representing sixty percent or more of the number of citizens over eighteen of the United States as determined by the Census Bureau, shall set a date for a presidential recall election to be held within two months.
3. No state may refuse to participate in a presidential recall election.
4. The text of the ballot will be, “Shall [name] be recalled and no longer serve as president of the United States?” The only two ballot options shall be “yes” and “no."
5. Removal shall be affirmed up a “yes” vote of at least sixty percent of votes cast.
6. Congress shall certify the results of the election not later than two weeks following election day.
7. At the moment of certification, if the national vote has affirmed recall, the president shall be removed and the next officer in the line of succession sworn into office.
8. Presidents thus recalled lose their presidential pension and would no longer be eligible to hold an elective or appointive office of the United States or any state.
9. Congress shall have the power to enforce these provisions by legislation.

 

Comments

Please note that though a partisan Congress might not want to do these things, sections 1, 2, and 6 require Congress to act if a triggering event occurs. Also, states cannot opt out of a recall election, another support for a nonpartisan and equitable process.

Congress could determine by law how petition signatures would be collected and checked. This could be arranged by adding to the duties of an existing agency under Congressional control such as the Government Accountability Office, or the duties of the clerk of the House or some other nonpartisan officer, or by creating a temporary organization designated for that purpose.

The large number of petitions that would be needed nationally, or the supermajority of citizens 18 and above represented by state legislatures required for the resolution process, would establish a near consensus but provide a reasonable chance of success, probably more so than impeachment. Decisions about leaders should never be on whim, but a widespread belief that it is necessary to remove an official as consequential as the president should also be respected. The sixty percent national vote required for removal would also be difficult to achieve but not unattainable.

Possible obstructions could include quibbling about or contesting Census Bureau numbers related to 1 and 2; a state obstructing voters in the recall election; attempting to delay the certification process, either at the state level or by Congress; and a president refusing to leave when recalled. In those cases, the people of the United States would simply have to insist through lawsuits, other court action, and political pressure.  If necessary, given lengthy obstruction of this process, they might instead choose to institute a new government as discussed in the Declaration of Independence paragraph two.

Retaining an impeachment process would still allow Congress to rise above partisanship and remove a president for cause. Retaining Amendment 25 would still allow the vice-president and Cabinet to act if a president becomes disabled (probably physically). Both have value though both can be abused or neglected because of partisan bias. Adding a presidential recall provides a way around unreasonable, parochial interests.

As of this moment (December, 2025), it seems likely that either method to initiate a recall would have a chance of succeeding if this amendment was currently in place. Collecting petition signatures or waiting for state legislatures to act would not lead to a rapid resolution, but could still do what no portion of the Constitution currently has ever done—remove a president.

Retirement, Dec. 13, 2025

              I turned in grades for my last two classes a few minutes ago, and I mean quite literally my last classes.

            Give or take a few emails, I’m done with teaching after a college career of 36 years plus 3 years before that teaching middle school. I’ve been tired for several years and it’s time, though whether the money will last well enough is related to mortality tables and other factors over which my control—or my input—is limited.

            What’s good about retiring? I avoid grading, which has been an albatross hanging around my neck for 39 years. Constantly having to evaluate other people and be accurate, thoughtful, compassionate but not a pushover, and fair is terribly difficult and thankless. My brain has also been made tundra by the endless instances of uncritical thought and horrible writing I’ve encountered. But they are not endless, for now there will be no more, thank God.

            Students who have no motivation or are forced  along by parents or coaches or parole officers are no longer mine to inspire. Again, thanks be to God. Most of my students did not fit this category but those who did sucked the life out of me a drop at a time. Goodbye, people who did not want to be doing this.

            I’m also no longer subject to college bureaucracies, bean counters who have no sense of a college’s mission, and all but a few administrators. Several of those have been terrific but speaking historically, that’s not the way to bet.

            Meetings, gone. Work red tape, done. Commutes, entirely a thing of the past since I’ve been teaching mostly online since Covid anyway. Huge piles of pointless emails, nearly over—I have to monitor email for a little longer but that’s the only work-related task I have left.

            What will I miss, given this litany of horrors? Much.

            I’ll miss most of my students who have kept me thinking and engaged and lightly in touch with contemporary popular culture. I’ll miss especially the ones I could provoke into interest when they arrived with little, and most of all the ones who were curious and fascinated and asked questions from the start.

            The experience of working hard in a classroom to transcend the ordinary and watch their faces change as they understood or became interested or horrified or excited—nothing will replace that. The days that teaching worked well were so much fun I couldn’t believe they paid me. (Not that I got much.)

            I’ll miss my colleagues, most of them, more than they will ever know. I worked throughout my career with some of the best teachers and instructors and professors one can imagine, and I always looked forward to talking shop with them. And simply hanging out with smart and caring people.

            What’s next? I don’t know in detail, but volunteering and local travel and a few writing projects are on the horizon. I won’t be tutoring or anything resembling teaching. I’ve done my time.

            How do I feel? Nothing has sunk in yet. Ask me in a month or two when I’m not busy with the next semester. My life has been measured in semesters for so long that I’ll need to find a new rhythm, a fresh way to engage regularly with the world. I’ll still be helping Mom navigate being 91, and still be thinking and reading plenty about history and politics though I’ll no longer be teaching the subjects. But what will I do every morning instead of opening college email and the class portals?

            Something else. At last.

Could the House Change Hands?

 

      Could the House of Representatives change hands during the current term?

            Recent developments suggest that it’s possible.

            At this moment (Nov. 24, 2025), Republicans hold 219 seats while Democrats have 213 and three seats are vacant. Who will fill them?

            Vacancy for the Texas 18^th District: Rep. Sylvester Turner (D) died in March, and the GOP leadership of Texas has been in no hurry to fill the vacancy. A runoff will be held on Jan. 31 between the two biggest vote getters from the first round. Both candidates are Democrats.

            Vacancy for the Tennessee 7^th District:  Rep. Mark Green (R) resigned in July. The winners of the Oct. 7 primary will contend on Dec. 2; the district tends to vote heavily Republican and national polling organizations list the seat as “likely” GOP.

            Vacancy for the New Jersey 11^th District: Rep. Mikie Sherrill resigned on Nov. 20 after being elected governor of New Jersey. The current governor set a primary for Feb. 5 and a special election for April 16. The general expectation is that a Democrat will win the seat.  

          

       Expected vacancy for the Georgia 14^th District: Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene announced recently that she would resign from the House effective Jan. 5. Under Georgia law, the governor can set a date for replacement elections within ten days of a resignation taking effect, and call for one as early as thirty days later, so the earliest possible date would be in February. It is not yet clear how Gov. Brian Kelly (R) will handle the timing. The district is considered safe for Republicans but the surprise and turmoil surrounding Greene’s announcement are a wild card. I’d still expect this seat to go to a Republican, but whether of the MAGA variety is less certain.

            Some Congressional staffers have been reported to say that that more resignations by Republicans are quite possible. Those events can’t be evaluated until they occur—if they do.

            Based on what we know at this moment, the numbers in the House following the special elections listed above will probably be these:

    GOP:             220
    Democrats:        215

            If no vacancies exist, 218 constitutes a majority. If further resignations drop the GOP below the number of seats held by the Democrats, the House would change hands. GOP members considering resignation would be pressured heavily not to do so if the numbers get any closer than they are.
Further, if a seat becomes open for a district which actually might change hands following a special election, then the possibilities for this rare swap increase. For reference, the last time control of the House moved from one party to the other during a term was in 1930.

            Of course, events could continue to develop and surprises sometimes happen. Beyond unexpected resignations, people sometimes die; the median age in the House right now is about 57.5 years, and annual mortality rates for people of that age are a bit less than one death for every hundred people, so three or four vacancies by natural causes would not be surprising before next November’s midterm elections. Deaths will also not correlate in any predictable way to party affiliation.

          I’ll update this topic as warranted.

Current Options for Removal (Oct. 11, 2025)

 

    By ignoring court rulings, attacking free speech, violating the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and illegally using the Defense Department (it’s not called “War” until Congress says so) to attempt to control American cities, Trump is posing such an affront to democracy that I can imagine a day—perhaps quite soon—when Americans who support the Constitution will need to remove him from office. Assuming that we might not have until midterm elections alter Congress, how could that be done?

    Scenario 1:  impeachment and removal. This will remain profoundly unlikely as long as Congress is in the craven, cruel, grasping hands of the Republican Party. Speaker Johnson will not allow an impeachment vote, but far before that the process would stop with committees refusing to even schedule hearings or votes on impeachment articles. And should a series of miracles move the House to vote for impeachment, the Senate would need almost a score of GOP senators to break with their party to vote Trump out. It’s more likely that the moon will turn to cheddar overnight.

    Scenario 2: removal via Amendment 25. Also deeply unlikely as it would require action by Vice-Pres. Vance and half plus one of the Cabinet, generally all Trump loyalists. The grounds would be mental disability unless a stroke or some other physical ailment presents itself, but we cannot count on those officials to do their jobs by being loyal to the Constitution and the country rather than Trump and this authoritarian version of the Republican Party.

    Sidebar: the two main Constitutional mechanisms for presidential removal are clearly not workable because of partisanship. We need to think of better means and pass an amendment to remedy this set of problems when the fascistic poltroons are no longer in charge.

    Scenario 3:  military coup. After the recent assembly of top brass at the insistence of Trump, and the bizarre set of remarks they heard from him and Hegseth, I’d regard this as more likely than ever before. The nonsense they witnessed, the dementia they observed, the insults they fielded—it must have been apparent to many in that room that the administration is led by fools and that those fools are trying to use U.S. armed forces for unconstitutional purposes. I don’t know exactly what form an armed forces coup might take, and certainly see deep dangers should this be attempted, but clearly also a number of top brass would be unlikely to follow unconstitutional orders. If Trump insists, or continues firing those more loyal to the Constitution than to him, a military coup is conceivable and might be worth the risk and dangerous precedent.

    Scenario 4: popular uprising. The problem is that many people are agitated but feeling helpless, and perhaps thirty percent of the voting public will lick Trump’s boots no matter what he does. Such uprisings need not be uniformly popular, but do require a threshold of support. With the president’s approval rating hovering at 40%, we may not be at that threshold yet. And who will lead? Few movements of this sort spring entirely from the grassroots. I’ve seen some speculation that an uprising could be inspired and led by past presidents, perhaps with other prominent political figures (say, Obama and Bush and Romney and several governors and whomever else will step to the fore). But who is stepping up? If this is happening, it’s hidden from public view but of course public uprisings cannot be for long. I don’t see this one baking in the oven yet. It’s a bunch of ingredients sitting in a pantry (unless clandestine cooks are at work in a secret kitchen).

    Scenario 4: storming the White House with Trump in it. This would be a bloody mess at best, and exactly who would do it? The Maryland and Virginia National Guard? A huge crowd of protestors? I think of barricade scenes from Les Misérables except with less singing and more actual dying and wonder if we’ll come to this. A crowd would need to be supplemented with rocket launchers to prevent a helicopter from whisking the president and other officials away. The provoking moment would need be egregious, perhaps Trump trying to suspend habeas corpus and locking up political opponents, or tight clamps on freedom of speech, or something even worse—like sacking Portland or Chicago.

    Of course none of these scenarios would play out if Trump had the grace and courtesy to die or become physically incapacitated. A post-Trump political world might be messy or horrible, but Trumpists will not necessarily become Vance supporters with similar enthusiasm, and that would provide an opportunity for the saner Republicans to reassert themselves. But we can’t be sure about any of this, having no comparable event in our history for reference, and so it’s worth remembering that forcing Trump out would not guarantee that our political culture would regain balance.

    Removing Trump is the first step, not the last.

Peak Summer in Olympia

 Update, Aug. 19, 2025

            Peak summer in Olympia gets a good rating from me. We’ve had a few hots days—last week it hit 94—but heat waves don’t last long. Two or three days of high temps are offset by nights that do eventually cool off and the more typical weather that follows. Three days ago the high was in the upper 60s with showers and we’ll have a couple more similar days soon. We don’t have air conditioning and will do without it since we’d only need it about ten days a year.

            My brother arrived on Aug. 1 and he left this past Thursday. I wish he could have stayed longer and he pledges to do so in January when he returns. His visit was divided roughly in two by our excursion to Springfield, MO, for the second Butler family reunion. With mom, we drove an hour to Seatac at the crack of doom, flew to Kansas City, and drove three plus hours to the Queen City of the Ozarks (a better title than Hog Princess of the Ozarks by a small margin). Quite a travel slog. Flying into Springfield is so expensive these days that the extra driving hours paid for themselves.

            But the reunion was worth the slog. Most of our cousins and spouses, some of their offspring and spouses, and a spouse to be named later attended and we had a very good time catching up. My cousins have generally inherited the sardonic humor gene and use it prolifically. Cousins Carla and Kristi presented some of the growing body of research on the Butler lineage and showed us a few mysteries that might be solvable or just as likely will produce horror novels. After the official event including a good catered dinner at the hotel meeting room, some of us gathered in the lobby for Mexican Train dominoes, using Moody house rules.

            I also had a chance to see my dad’s wife Pam and my longtime friends David and Tammy Moody. They created those domino house rules. Avoid the double blank.

            While my brother was here we took an air-conditioned drive on a hot day and saw the badly named Millersylvania State Park, which is quite beautiful, and ate out a few extra times. Brian was the big winner at the Lucky Eagle Casino before the reunion trip. And he made Nanaimo bars (online recipes easily findable) and for a recent meal, excellent cashew chicken.

            Otherwise, what’s been happening? Down time for projects and rest between semesters. I’ve been prepping two classes for the fall semester which starts Aug. 25, but I’ve enjoyed the break since about July 10 very much. One sour note—since March and April I’ve noticed more hearing loss in my right ear. I had it checked and that got elaborate: a hearing test (loss confirmed and asymmetrical which piqued the attention of the audiologist), blood tests to rule out autoimmune disease (it’s ruled out), an MRI to look for a probably benign tumor (none there, and is there a less comforting phrase than “probably benign”?), and now further audiology to determine whether I need new hearing aids. I’m listening to less music. I hope that’s temporary as these changes play out.

            Mom and I continue to watch BritBox detective/mystery series nearly every evening. Right now it’s “Father Brown,” somewhat loosely based on the title character from detective stories by G.K. Chesterton though only a few of the episodes are based on his stories and then loosely. Key term? Loosely. Brown is played by Mark Williams (Arthur Weasley in the Harry Potter films).

            Reading a Ray Bradbury short story collection (weird stories, they used to call them, sort of horror lite) right now. On deck: old novels or story collections by Robert Silverberg, Damon Knight, Walter M. Miller, Jr., and James Blish; a more recent award-winning novel, China Mountain Zhang; and outside of S-F, the novel Invisible Cities by Italo Calvino and stories by M.R. James, the Edwardian ghost story paragon. Not a serious tome in sight, because summer.

            I’m trying not to let politics bother me beyond stirring up revolutionary thoughts. When we’re done ousting Trump and company, what should be our systemic focus? Several reforms:  1) institute public financing of campaigns, 2) greatly limit or outlaw the use of personal wealth to run for office, 3) cap the total amount of wealth a person may control, because money rots politics, 4) ideally change to a party-list electoral system for the House of Representatives which would end gerrymandering, 5) declare corporations to have rights less than people and empower Congress to restrict them, 6) alter the Supreme Court though I’m conflicted about exactly how, 7) constrain the president’s pardon power, and 8) ban convicted felons from running from office.

            We might also want to charge large numbers of Trumpists with sedition, but that’s not systemic. "Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an everflowing stream" (Amos 5:24, RSV).

            What’s happening with all of you? Spill. Please.

Trump's Exit

Prediction is often another word for illusion, and since I am not Tiresias or some other prophet from Greek mythology, I won’t attempt it. Still, everyone must go, from presidents to paramecia, and only a set number of options exist. Here are those related to Trump.

Death, Natural. He’s 79 and not in the best physical condition. Something sudden or quick is both entirely possible and not at all certain. I do not expect a narcissist to commit suicide, at least not directly, though eating lots of nachos would make him more orange and could lead to arterial catastrophe. Four sitting presidents have died in office of natural causes to date. None have died from broader natural disasters and probably neither will Trump.

Might he survive a second term (or even more, should he become an effective dictator), he’ll die eventually. Give or take Enoch and Elijah, everyone dies—Stalin, Pol Pot, Pinochet, Khrushchev, Disney. Some died as dictators, others in retirement, and we’re not sure about frozen Disney and if he might be revived at some point to fire corporate leaders.

Death, Assassination. This cannot be ruled out for any president. I do not recommend this as a course of action, both for ethical reasons and because an assassinated Trump would become a martyr to his cult and make it more likely to persist. Since four presidents have died after being shot and others have survived attempts, on a percentage basis the job is rather dangerous.

Death, Apocalyptic. With his finger on the big red button, who knows?

Incapacity, Natural Causes. Might he have a stroke or develop a disabling disease and be subject to a 25^th Amendment action by his supporters? If the incapacity is serious enough. A physical disability would do the trick more certainly than mental illness (because differentiating between a mentally ill Trump and the one we currently see is problematic). When might Vice-Pres. Vance and a majority of the Cabinet make this move? I imagine only when the incapacity becomes unavoidably obvious and is unlikely to change in the short term. A serious stroke, or a coma, or some other problem in that neighborhood would be sufficient. If he did not recover, Vance could serve out the remainder of the term and inadvertently, constantly remind everyone that he’s not a cult figure to most Trumpists.

One argument Vance and others might make is that the 25^th Amendment includes a method for the president to be restored to office if the president is once again able to serve.

Incapacity, Caused By an Attack. The same motives would be in play but with overlays of hagiography from Trump’s base. If the president was forced out of the action by physical injuries that did not kill him, it might be more difficult to operate those never-used portions of the 25^th Amendment. Quite possibly conspiracy theory would dominate Trump’s base since for the majority of them it’s their default mode anyway. Expect accusations against Vance and possibly others, without documentation but with enormous outcries. This might easily also apply to incapacity by natural causes though then the president’s personal physician would have to be in on the conspiracy which is without a doubt what some Trumpists would say even though they might be pristinely uncontaminated by evidence.

Resignation. At the moment this seems a remote possibility. If it ever occurs, it would be forced as Nixon’s was though Trump may not be as capable of rational political analysis as Nixon, especially since he’s only a fraction as intelligent. And what moral core exists in Trump? Nixon showed traces of one, but we have no evidence that Trump would feel enough remorse and regret over any action to voluntarily resign. Stranger things have happened than a Trump resignation, but not many and not often.

Impeachment and Removal. What would it take for Republicans in Congress to unify and act against Trump in sufficient numbers to force his removal? Again, the mind boggles at what would be needed. They have swallowed whole so many mouthfuls of what most Republicans of the past would have spit out. If it ever became incontrovertible that Trump was a Russian agent, that might do the trick. But the GOP is so craven these days that the key word in that sentence is “might.” And the Democrats do not have the numbers to impeach without considerable Republican help.

Prevented From Running Again. Sure, it’s unconstitutional for Trump to stand for election again in 2028, but he’s already talked about violating the hell out of our framework of government and running anyway. But the GOP may look for a younger and more tractable candidate instead. And if he makes a serious attempt to keep power at that point, the next couple of possibilities become more likely.

Coup. Quite a few sources these days assert that Trump is alienating many in the military, and also many Democratic governors who might be able to persuade some National Guard units to help. This whole scenario is an enormous question mark since if a coup is being planned, no one is leaking the details to the Associated Press. Is one possible even if improbable? Before 2025 I’d have bet not. Now, I’m not betting at all though when pushed I’d guess that it’s not likely—yet.

Avoiding this route would be better for democracy for the long haul. Since a coup might conceivably start a civil war, it should be considered a nightmare rather than a daydream for those who despise this hideous presidency. And the precedent it would set is exactly what the delegates at the 1787 Constitutional Convention hoped to avoid.

A foreign-led coup would be unthinkable except that I wonder what the G7 leaders talk about when Trump’s not around. American craziness is automatically global craziness.

General Uprising. To paraphrase Tom Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and John Adams (what a composition committee) in paragraph two of the Declaration of Independence:  “when lengthy and frequent abuses and unlawful takeovers make clear the goal of reducing the people under despotism, it is their right and duty to throw off such government, and to create new safeguards for their future security.”

From the vantage of June, 2025, I don’t know when or if a revolt might occur. But our respect for authority must end when that authority abuses people regularly and systematically. Or, if you prefer, our respect for the Constitution and constitutional process must supersede our deference to any person regardless of position. If some members of the Supreme Court argue the opposite, then the general uprising might need to take them into custody as well. Not only presidents are capable of abuse. And I’d rather trust the ideas of Madison and Hamilton than those of Thomas and Alito.

What would happen to Trump if enough people rose up? He might escape to a friendly haven (Dubai? Moscow?). He might disappear, by which I mean that he would be taken to a secret location and kept there, alive or dead. He might be summarily executed as Ceausescu and Gaddafi were. Or, he might be captured, placed on trial, and given either life in prison or the death penalty. All of these options are not simply uncharted waters, but oceans on planets we have not yet discovered.

Conclusion. I cannot predict, or guess, or speculate about how Trump’s presidency and life will end, but they will, as certainly as we are all mortal (even Keith Richards). Our corrupt and amoral and narcissistic and generally foolish president will some day die or be incapacitated or leave office some other way.

Is it wrong to long for that moment? If we respect the Constitution and love our country, and those are under threat, then no. To quote the Declaration near its conclusion, a leader “whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”