Posted on 03/21/2025 12:58:56 PM PDT by BigB60
Article II, Section 2, Clause 1:
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at constitution.congress.gov ...
The key phrase here is “Offences against the United States.” In constitutional interpretation, this language has been understood to refer specifically to federal crimes rather than state crimes. The Constitution establishes a federal system where powers are divided between the national government and state governments. “Offences against the United States” specifically refers to violations of federal law, as opposed to violations of state laws which would be “offences against” individual states. This reading aligns with the Tenth Amendment principle that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.
One could interpret it differently, but the supreme court has historically read it this way.
The Founders sometimes used one big long sentence when several small sentences would have been clearer. But, yeah. The president’s power to pardon federal offenses is without limit. Except for impeachment, of course.
And that’s always bothered me. The Founders fought a war to get rid of a king. Then they gave the president a king-like power to pardon. Some check should have been added. Perhaps a pardon could be vetoed by 2/3 of the Senate.
If I ever invent a time machine, I’m going to mention this to George, Ben, and the rest of the guys.
🙂
Biden thought he absolute power and so did his auto pen.
The article also seems to argue that pardons or commutations cannot be granted where no such offense against the United States exists. This throws the pre-emptive pardons of the J6 committee members and others (Fauci, etc.) into doubt.
I agree.
It’s for crimes against the United States.
SO if there are tax issues, then he can pardon federal tax evasion but the States are still entitled to their pound of flesh.
Keep in mind, this was written when there was no income tax
Schiffty got a pardon for his crimes. What crimes?
Only if they were convicted of a Federal charge in a Federal court. The president cannot pardon those convicted of a State charge in a State court.
It does nothing of the sort. There is nothing in that clause that limits his power to issue pardons for federal crimes. There’s no requirement of the charge be laid, that a trial be arranged, that a conviction be obtained. You’re swimming upstream here. Nobody else interprets it your way. Are you upset that the J6 patriots got pardoned?
Yes, but with the tax some things are Federal and some are State.
Delaware needs to hunt Hunter.
Yes, but with the tax some things are Federal and some are State.
Delaware needs to hunt Hunter.
can pardon and federal crime
Right....FEDERAL Crime only..
I understand the not being able to pardon state crimes, but are all crimes that are federal fall under the Executive branch in Art. II? For example, Bob Menendez was found guilty of bribery, fraud, and false statements. The DOJ, not NJ, brought the indictment. Can Menendez be pardoned? Within the context of the Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 section, there is a reasonable case to be made that he could not. He was not part of the Executive branch.
The run-on sentence in the clause really makes the case that our forefathers really were limiting the pardon power to strictly the Executive branch, not a broad brush for all of the federal government. Gov. Rod Blagojevich was impeached by the IL state assembly. His crimes were associated with the U.S. Senate. Trump pardoned him. So the last part of the clause is ignored or doesn’t apply? It seems the forefathers would have frowned on this.
Clearly, the Biden family pardons etc. are problematic because many of his pardons are for future indictments. What
“offenses” were against the U.S. at the time of the pardon?
I’m having doubts about how this power is used and how SCOTUS intrepets the clause. Good comments on this post.
My question was whether the J6 Committee members who were also pardoned (without charges of any kind) would be vulnerable to prosecution if the “preemptive pardons” who proven to be improperly issued.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.