Home › Topics › Government › Government ethics › Public office and private gain › Public office should not be usable for priv… › Letting Congress overturn a presidential pa… › Claim: A president should be barred from pardoning relatives, dono…
Claim
A president should be barred from pardoning relatives, donors and co-defendants, with no general override. 0.50 Agree Disagree
If you disagree, this page has a column for you. A reason to disagree that answers: “It reaches the private-gain cases directly and leaves ordinary clemency untouched”.
Argument TreesHow arguments are scored →
Reasons to agree
| # | Argument | Truth | Conf | Link | Imp | Uniq | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | It reaches the private-gain cases directly and leaves ordinary clemency untouched. | 0.50 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.50 | 1.00 | +0.00 |
| 2 | This is what one of the two introduced amendments actually does. | 0.50 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.50 | 1.00 | +0.00 |
Reasons to disagree
| # | Argument | Truth | Conf | Link | Imp | Uniq | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | It still requires a constitutional amendment, so it carries the same enactment problem with a narrower benefit. | 0.50 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.50 | 1.00 | -0.00 |
Weight for 0.00 · weight against 0.00 · net +0.00
Each reason is a claim with its own page. Score = sign x (2 x Truth - 1) x Conf x Link x Imp x Uniq, and every column is here so the row can be multiplied out and checked. A reason argued false scores negative and counts against the side it is filed on; a reason nobody has argued yet scores exactly 0, and so does one whose own page has no work behind it.
Ways of Saying the Same ThingOne page per belief →
| Wording | Chars | Equiv | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| A president should be barred from pardoning relatives, donors and co-defendants, with no general override. used | 106 | this page | the wording argued on this page |
| Letting Congress overturn a presidential pardon by a two-thirds vote of both chambers would reduce the use of the pardon power for private gain. | 144 | 0.50 | overlapping claim: keep both, name the difference |
No equivalent scores 0.90 yet, so this page's own wording is used wherever space is short. Argue an equivalence page up to that line and the shortest wording that clears it takes over.
Each row is a claim with its own page; Equiv is the truth score of the equivalence page that says it makes the same claim as this one. Shorter is better only once the equivalence holds.
Where This Page Is Used
| Page | Table | As | Its truth |
|---|---|---|---|
| Letting Congress overturn a presidential pardon by a two-thirds vote of both chambers would reduce the use of the pardon power for private gain. | similar beliefs | a row | 0.50 |
Every page that reads this one. One claim, one home, every use visible.
Not filled in yet
| What Would Change the Answer | nothing sits beneath this page yet for the answer to rest on |
| Evidence Ledger | no findings cited yet |
| Falsifiability Test | nothing named that would strengthen or weaken this claim if it turned up |
| Testable Predictions | nothing stated that we should observe if this claim is true or false |
| Objective Criteria | no yardstick both sides would accept in advance has been proposed |
| What Acting On This Would Cost and Gain | no costs or benefits priced yet |
| Logical Anatomy | the claim has not been split into its component parts |
| Interests, Not Positions | nobody has mapped who wants what, or why |
| Media Resources | no books, studies or films weighed |
| Legal Framework | no laws or rulings cited |
| General to Specific | not linked to broader or narrower beliefs |
Parts of the template nobody has filled in here. They are named rather than shown, because an empty table is not a finding, and each one is a reason the confidence above is not higher. A part that takes rows has a form for its first one.
What this page needs right now
| # | The gap | Where it goes | Who is best placed to fill it |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | A reason to disagree that answers: “It reaches the private-gain cases directly and leaves ordinary clemency untouched” | Argument Trees, Reasons to disagree | someone who holds the opposing position |
| 2 | A study, record or dataset that bears on this belief directly | Evidence Ledger | anyone with the source |
| 3 | A measurement both sides would accept in advance, with the reading each side predicts | Objective Criteria | anyone who can name a yardstick the other side would sign |
Named gaps, read off the tables above, so a newcomer can see exactly where a contribution goes. None of them requires agreeing with the page, and each one links to the form it goes in.
What the numbers are made of
- Share on the agree side
- no scored weight either way
- Confidence
- 28%. Weakest parts: depth 0% · scrutiny 0%
- Depended on
- ReasonRank 0.0000, 2016 of 2173 · beneath 0 of 162 beliefs · read by 0 pages · used on 1 unscored row
- Strongest reason for
- It reaches the private-gain cases directly and leaves ordinary clemency untouched. +0.00
- Strongest reason against
- It still requires a constitutional amendment, so it carries the same enactment problem with a narrower benefit. -0.00
- Coverage
- Of 3 scored rows, 3 have no linkage page, 3 have no importance page, 3 have no uniqueness page. This page reads no other page, so nothing beneath it can move it.
Scoring EngineTruth scores →
| Quantity | Value | How |
|---|---|---|
| Argument score | +0.00 | argument rows: weight for minus weight against |
| Evidence score | +0.00 | evidence rows: weight for minus weight against |
| Prediction contribution | +0.00 | prediction rows, same signed formula as every other row |
| Belief score | +0.00 | the three lines above added together |
| Positive total | 0.00 | every row whose signed contribution came out positive, from either side |
| Negative total | 0.00 | every row whose signed contribution came out negative, as a magnitude |
| Starting point | 0.50 | where this claim starts before any of its own rows count: Nothing observed: no source type recorded, so this claim starts at a coin flip |
| Weight of the starting point | 1.00 | k x a bounded reward for independent replication, k = 1, capped at 2.0 x k |
| Truth score, argued | 0.50 | (positive + weight x starting point) / (positive + negative + weight) |
| Truth score | 0.50 | argued truth, capped by the weakest load-bearing component that has its own page |
| ReasonRank | 0.0000 | how much of the site depends on this page: rank 2016 of 2173. The share of a walk that starts at the 162 beliefs and steps to the pages they read, with a 0.85 chance of stepping on each time |
| Work value | 0.0000 | ReasonRank x (1 - confidence): how much settling this page would be worth to everything above it |
| Completeness | yes | at least one scored reason on each side (an importance page: at least one interest; an interest page: both readings filled) |
Cite this page A president should be barred from pardoning relatives, donors and co-defendants, with no general override. Idea Stock Exchange, claim page president-barred-pardoning-relatives, truth 0.50, confidence 28%, revision 42c8344 of 2026-10-04. The revision is what makes this quotable: these numbers move as the argument is worked on, and rebuilding that revision reproduces them exactly.
Every number on this page as data: president-barred-pardoning-relatives.json. Constants: K = 1 · UNARG = 0.5 · DEFLINK = 1 · DEFIMP = 0.5 · DEFUNIQ = 1. A reason placed under a conclusion is presumed relevant until a linkage page says otherwise; the burden is on the challenger. The neutral start for importance, the wiki's own rule.
Every value here is computed from the tables above at build time. Nothing is typed.