In today’s Wall Street Journal: Daniel Henninger, making the case for a pardon of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, remarks that it would be “mainly about closing some of the worst wounds of these long war years”–a worthy use of a wise president’s constitutional pardon power. Minnesota law professor Michael Stokes Paulsen powerfully argues that the recount process thus far in that state’s Senate race has been plainly unconstitutional under the precedent of Bush v. Gore. And Arlen Specter and Edwin Meese revisit Eric Holder’s history in the Clinton Justice Department, when he enunciated a policy that has had damaging effects on the right to counsel and the protection against self-incrimination in white-collar criminal cases.

In today’s New York Times, the editors assemble some excellent questions for Mr. Holder to answer (if only senators will ask them) from Jack Goldsmith, Jeffrey Rosen, Noah Feldman, Eugene Volokh, and Charles Stimson.

In the Washington Post, George F. Will notes the interesting theory of California attorney general Jerry Brown that, drawing on “some authority somewhere outside the Constitution,” judges can change what a constitution says, while citizens employing the constitution’s own procedures for changing it cannot undo what the judges have done.

UPDATE: Just one more. My favorite columnist who isn’t nationally syndicated but should be, Linda Whitlock of the Roanoke Times, has wise words on the idea of an “elastic” Constitution.