General Discussion

or could statue serve to constrain the terminology used in the Constitution?

Federal pardon power is absolute - I think that is the case in most governments across the world but I don't know.

Mandating a specific number of pardons is a bad idea because you could easily imagine a scenario where a despot is overthrown and his or her successor would need to exercise a lot of pardoning or commutation.

The idea of Congressional review is interesting because it would permit an unlimited number of pardons and tie direct political consequences to unwise application of pardoning power. It would link the Congress to the choices made by the executive with regard to matters of crime and punishment that they are ordinarily relatively insulated.

There would also be an administrative solution. Pardon power is unlimited and absolute, but it must specifically list the crime, the name, the context, etc. or otherwise be invalid. Instead of Trump giving a blanket pardon to 2000 people, he'd have to process 2000 individual pardons and each pardon would apply only to one offense.

"I, President Trump, do hereby pardon X for the crime of sedition and insurrection" really brings the issue to a head, and having to do that 2000 times via official channels.

There are other pardons I object to that are not limited to one party, and I think that administrative/political poison solution might've obviated them as well.