Blanket Pardons are Unconstitutional

[Cassandro]

The US Constitution (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2) grants the President the power to "pardon Offenses against the United States." This means that the Offense (crime), as well as the person who committed it, must be identified in order for the pardon to take effect.

Blanket pardons are Unconstitutional because they do not meet both criteria. If the Offense is unspecified (or unknown), it cannot be pardoned any more than if the perpetrator is unknown. Otherwise, the President would have the power to nullify laws passed by Congress.

Blanket pardons covering a specified period of time are particularly odious to the Constitution. What if the person being pardoned committed an unknown crime (e.g., murder) during that time period? Would (s)he be permanently immune from prosecution?

Stare decisis is a good general principle, but when a series of expedient court decisions have left us down a rabbit hole, it is time to plow the field back to its intended purpose.

 

[Auld Phart]

The US Constitution (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2) grants the President the power to "pardon Offenses against the United States." This means that the Offense (crime), as well as the person who committed it, must be identified in order for the pardon to take effect.

Blanket pardons are Unconstitutional because they do not meet both criteria. If the Offense is unspecified (or unknown), it cannot be pardoned any more than if the perpetrator is unknown. Otherwise, the President would have the power to nullify laws passed by Congress.

Blanket pardons covering a specified period of time are particularly odious to the Constitution. What if the person being pardoned committed an unknown crime (e.g., murder) during that time period? Would (s)he be permanently immune from prosecution?

Stare decisis is a good general principle, but when a series of expedient court decisions have left us down a rabbit hole, it is time to plow the field back to its intended purpose.

2 that come to mind are Southern soldiers, and draft dodgers

 

[shockedcanadian]

The US Constitution (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2) grants the President the power to "pardon Offenses against the United States." This means that the Offense (crime), as well as the person who committed it, must be identified in order for the pardon to take effect.

Blanket pardons are Unconstitutional because they do not meet both criteria. If the Offense is unspecified (or unknown), it cannot be pardoned any more than if the perpetrator is unknown. Otherwise, the President would have the power to nullify laws passed by Congress.

Blanket pardons covering a specified period of time are particularly odious to the Constitution. What if the person being pardoned committed an unknown crime (e.g., murder) during that time period? Would (s)he be permanently immune from prosecution?

Stare decisis is a good general principle, but when a series of expedient court decisions have left us down a rabbit hole, it is time to plow the field back to its intended purpose.

Clearly

WHat if a president said "I pardon every American citizens for every crime going back to 2014"?

 

[airplanemechanic]

The powers granted to the POTUS in the constitution are very broad, and there is no requirement that the crime have been indicted or convicted. It can happen at any time in the legal process, even before being charged.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Clearly

WHat if a president said "I pardon every American citizens for every crime going back to 2014"?

He can do that, legally. That's his right. Now they would only be federal crimes, not state crimes.

 

[Cassandro]

2 that come to mind are Southern soldiers, and draft dodgers

Both are identified as to persons and offenses.

 

[Cassandro]

The powers granted to the POTUS in the constitution are very broad, and there is no requirement that the crime have been indicted or convicted. It can happen at any time in the legal process, even before being charged.

That is why SCOTUS needs to clarify the much-abused Pardon power.

 

[airplanemechanic]

That is why SCOTUS needs to clarify the much-abused Pardon power.

It already has.

In the 1886 case Ex parte Garland, the Court referred to the President’s authority to pardon as unlimited except in cases of impeachment, extending to every offence known to the law and able to be exercised either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.

 

[Oddball]

2 that come to mind are Southern soldiers, and draft dodgers

The context is there is warfare...Also, those individuals were pardoned for specific acts, not just any and all acts for specified time frames.

Opens up a serious can of worms for the "pardoned", don't you think?

 

[airplanemechanic]

I have no problem with blanket pardons as long as the comforter, mattress and box spring get the same treatment.

 

[Cassandro]

It already has.

In the 1886 case Ex parte Garland, the Court referred to the President’s authority to pardon as unlimited except in cases of impeachment, extending to every offence known to the law and able to be exercised either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.

What does "every offence known to the law" mean to you?

 

[Crepitus]

The US Constitution (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2) grants the President the power to "pardon Offenses against the United States." This means that the Offense (crime), as well as the person who committed it, must be identified in order for the pardon to take effect.

Blanket pardons are Unconstitutional because they do not meet both criteria. If the Offense is unspecified (or unknown), it cannot be pardoned any more than if the perpetrator is unknown. Otherwise, the President would have the power to nullify laws passed by Congress.

Blanket pardons covering a specified period of time are particularly odious to the Constitution. What if the person being pardoned committed an unknown crime (e.g., murder) during that time period? Would (s)he be permanently immune from prosecution?

Stare decisis is a good general principle, but when a series of expedient court decisions have left us down a rabbit hole, it is time to plow the field back to its intended purpose.

Yeah, that's a lotta calling the kettle black.

tRy again.

 

[airplanemechanic]

What does "every offence known to the law" mean to you?

The phrase "known to the law" refers to the legal principle that everyone is presumed to know the law and is therefore responsible for obeying it, regardless of their personal awareness of specific statutes or regulations.

It does not mean "indicted". I means that you can't issue pardons for offenses against laws nobody knows.

 

[airplanemechanic]

In Garland, 71 U.S. at 380; see also Schick v. Reed,

"Congress generally cannot substantively constrain the President’s pardon authority through legislation, as the Court has held that the power of the President is not subject to legislative control. Congress can neither limit the effect of his pardon, nor exclude from its exercise any class of offenders. The benign prerogative of mercy reposed in him cannot be fettered by any legislative restrictions."

To limit the president's pardon powers would take a constitutional amendment.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C1-3-1/ALDE_00013316/#ALDF_00022687

 

[Cassandro]

The phrase "known to the law" refers to the legal principle that everyone is presumed to know the law and is therefore responsible for obeying it, regardless of their personal awareness of specific statutes or regulations.

The phrase in question is "every offence [sic] known to the law." This means every infraction of federal law, not whether everyone everyone is presumed to know it. It also implies that some legal authority has become aware of the infraction, since it would otherwise be a moot point.

 

[Cassandro]

In Garland, 71 U.S. at 380; see also Schick v. Reed,

"Congress generally cannot substantively constrain the President’s pardon authority through legislation, as the Court has held that the power of the President is not subject to legislative control. Congress can neither limit the effect of his pardon, nor exclude from its exercise any class of offenders. The benign prerogative of mercy reposed in him cannot be fettered by any legislative restrictions."

To limit the president's pardon powers would take a constitutional amendment.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C1-3-1/ALDE_00013316/#ALDF_00022687

We are talking about judicial interpretation, not Congressional restraint.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

No, blanket pardons are constitutional.

 

[airplanemechanic]

The phrase in question is "every offence [sic] known to the law." This means every infraction of federal law, not whether everyone everyone is presumed to know it. It also implies that some legal authority has become aware of the infraction, since it would otherwise be a moot point.

Nope, it has nothing to do with anyone knowing about it.

 

[airplanemechanic]

We are talking about judicial interpretation, not Congressional restraint.

I just showed you the link, SCOTUS has already ruled that the presidents pardon powers are basically unlimited, other than for impeachments, and any limits imposed would take a constitutional amendment. Read what I post.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

SCOTUS counts here, and Congressiona has no power to restrain the President's pardon power.