...and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Thanks for posting the actual wording. It might be interesting to get a case before the SCOTUS to get them to define the line “offenses against the United States.”
1. What does United States mean? The government? Or any person?
2. “Against” vs. “in” the United States? The latter term is more vague and wide.
3. “Offenses” means supposed or actual?
It would be smart to charge Fauci, have him twist through the system and bankrupt his a$$. At least he can appreciate what Trump has gone through for the last 8 years.
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.