Blanket Pardons are Unconstitutional

[airplanemechanic]

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

He says he's talking about judicial interpretation and then ignores my link and proof that SCOTUS has already interpreted this about 150 years ago.

 

[Cassandro]

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

Are you dyslexic? That is just what I said:

This means every infraction of federal law, not whether everyone everyone is presumed to know it.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Why don't you tell SCOTUS about this?

I see nothing about that in the Constitution:

... and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

If you think this true, why has no one overturned Biden's blanket pardons as well as Nixon being pardoned?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Both are identified as to persons and offenses.

Where does it say that?

Please quote the relevant text.

 

[Care4all]

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

President Nixon was pardoned for unknown crimes committed the previous 6 years of his presidency....?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

He says he's talking about judicial interpretation and then ignores my link and proof that SCOTUS has already interpreted this about 150 years ago.

Yes, this is only for SCOTUS, and they are pretty clear on it.

 

[BackAgain]

Clearly

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

Most criminal prosecutions are state jurisdictional matters.

Presidential pardons are only authorized for Federal cases.

 

[Care4all]

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.

Sure seems like it was truly meant for something other than what has been before us....?

Was Nixon the first pre-emptive pardon issued?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Lawyers And Judges Instituted Judicial Activism To Pardon Unscrupulous Actions Not Within Executive Powers "

* Article II Section 2 Clauses Limiting Power To Treaties And Pardon Of Executive Appointments And Federal Military *

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.

The interpretation of this moniker regarding article ii , section 2, clause 1 and 2 is that reprieves and pardons are restricted to military appointments and to executive appointments to federal departments , etc .

Would " He " apply to a female president ?

Section 2 Powers​

Clause 1 Military, Administrative, and Clemency​

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Clause 2 Advice and Consent
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.


* Citing Early English Law For Kings Not Executive Branch Of Us Republic *

Why is citing early english law not equivalent relegating powers to that of a king ?

The collaboration of legal institutions , to promote pardons for its own indiscretions , bequeathed powers to us president that do not pertain to treaties , or military , or to executive appointments .

The legal institutions pulled a serious egregious stunt of judicial activism against the intended meaning of us constitution , as if some would be president should have the power to issue a pardon for crimes that are not related with executive responsibilities .


The Constitution establishes the President’s authority to grant clemency, encompassing not only pardons of individuals but several other forms of relief from criminal punishment as well.1 The power, which has historical roots in early English law,2 has been recognized by the Supreme Court as quite broad. 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.3 Much later, the Court wrote that the broad power conferred in the Constitution gives the President plenary authority to 'forgive’ [a] convicted person in part or entirely, to reduce a penalty in terms of a specified number of years, or to alter it with certain conditions.4

Despite the breadth of the President’s authority under the Pardon Clause, the Constitution’s text provides for at least two limits on the power: first, clemency may only be granted for Offenses against the United States,5 meaning that state criminal offenses and federal or state civil claims are not covered.6 Second, the President’s clemency authority cannot be used in Cases of impeachment.7

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Read the two immediately above. Then giggle.

 

[PeterPilot]

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.

Do you buy into the presumption of innocence in our system? A person is presumed to be innocent until the government proves the crime.

So if a person has not been charged, indicted or convicted of a crime, how can he be pardoned?

 

[Cassandro]

Where does it say that?

Please quote the relevant text.

My post was a direct reply reply to a question about pardons for southern soldiers and draft dodgers. I correctly stated that, in those cases, both their identities and offenses were identified (unlike blanket pardons). What is so hard to understand about that?

How can one pardon an "offence" without identifying it?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

My post was a direct reply reply to a question about pardons for southern soldiers and draft dodgers. I correctly stated that, in those cases, both their identities and offenses were identified (unlike blanket pardons). What is so hard to understand about that?

How can one pardon an "offence" without identifying it?

Easy peasy! Already done many times. Surely you didn't hear about it?

 

[PeterPilot]

A little trivia regarding the Pardon Power of POTUS

Whiskey Rebellion

In January 1791, President George Washington's Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton proposed?

www.mountvernon.org

George Washington ultimately pardoned the first ever federal prisoners.

 

[FireFly]

Clearly

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

Then he couldn't arrest or deport anyone

 

[FireFly]

Trumps promis to pardon all police has turned them into thugs who are above the law.

 

[Dekster]

Then he couldn't arrest or deport anyone

He could still deport people because they would still be here illegally a second after the pardon was made. He would have to grant them amnesty to stop their deportation.

 

[whitehall]

Pardons for unspecified future crimes is worse than illegal, it's insane. No outcry from the mainstream media though. Let's not even consider "autopen" pardons.