Since the Constitution provides no other guidance for interpreting that phrase, I would argue that since it states that the President has power to issue reprieves and pardons for “offences”, it does not grant the President power to issue them where no offense has occurred. It’s simple logic, as well as just obvious grammar. An identifiable offense must have occurred for a pardon to be issued for it, otherwise this phrase, and the pardon power itself, makes no sense.
At the very least, issuing a pardon MUST be counted as absolute and final proof that an “offence” (a crime) WAS committed by anyone receiving that pardon.
Exactly so..............
Exactly so..............