[keernan]

>>the prohibition on ex post facto laws would only affect pardons going forward.

That is plainly wrong. A constitutional amendment can say anything. There are no prohibitions.

[ohyoutravel]

Well, no, it’s in the US Constitution. So I suppose congress could add a constitutional amendment to remove the prohibition on ex post facto laws. But that’s so unthinkable it might as well be a fantasy. Far from “plainly wrong,” which seems unnecessarily aggressive verbiage.

[wat10000]

Why couldn't the amendment just say, "The presidential power pardon is revoked, and all prior pardons are null and void"? You have to amend the Constitution to remove the pardon power regardless, why would it be so difficult to put in a clause saying that it's retroactive?

[ceejayoz]

An amendment can’t violate the constitution. It is the constitution. You can do anything.

[fuzzfactor]

Whatever it takes would be worth it.

An example needs to be set.