Do you really not understand the difference between opposing something and thinking that something is unConstitutional?
Holy non-sequitur, Batman!
I was addressing Paul's spokesmouth's suggestion that there is a higher principle involved in Presidential pardon than the Constitution outlines. To wit:
In reality, the reason for a Presidential pardon is, constitutionally, any reason the President gives. S/he doesn't have to examine jack squat or conduct an investigation if s/he doesn't want to.
...to attack him, Charen twists the understanding of what a presidential pardon really is. A pardon is a constitutional check by the executive branch on the judiciary to protect against cruel or unusual punishment. When considering a pardon, a president examines extenuating circumstances to decide whether a punishment for a conviction under the law was unjust.
Paul's answer in the debate fails even along the line of Jesse Benton's retort. Paul didn't say that he would not pardon Libby because he his conviction fell short of the standard of a miscarriage of justice, but because Scooter supported the war.