Posted on 12/11/2024 5:38:05 AM PST by MtnClimber
Put simply:
Before anyone is pardoned for a crime or crimes, shouldn’t the crime(s) be disclosed to the American people?
I understand that the power to pardon is enshrined in the Constitution, but where in the Constitution does it say that the crime that is pardoned shall remain undisclosed to the American people?
The requirement that the crimes be disclosed before they are pardoned should be made law. There is nothing in the Constitution of which I am aware that prevents this requirement for transparency from being made law.
Why would anyone oppose such a law?
Constitutional scholars please put forth your views on this issue.
A good idea. It is the punishment that is being pardoned, not the facts or the truth.
Well, here’s a question: Just because someone is pardoned and can’t have a criminal conviction or sentence enforced, does that mean you can’t still have a criminal trial?
Allocution should be required.
The post-Civil War pardons were for rebellion alone I believe. They excluded mistreatment of POWs I believe.
The rebels weren’t convicted, but they were militarily whipped.
Ford’s pardon of Nixon was broadly written, but it was clearly for obstruction of justice which was made pretty clear by Congressional hearings.
IT SHOULD BE MANDATORY. If they want a pardon, they need to submit a list of the crimes they committed for which they need a pardon.
Hunter might live the rest of his life in a lawful manner, and I might inherit a billion dollars.
You can’t pardon someone for something they haven’t been charged and convicted for.
WIKI
In the English and British tradition, the royal prerogative of mercy is one of the historic royal prerogatives of the British monarch, by which they can grant pardons (informally known as a royal pardon) to convicted persons. The royal prerogative of mercy was originally used to permit the monarch to withdraw, or provide alternatives to, death sentences; the alternative of penal transportation to “partes abroade” was used since at least 1617. It is now used to change any sentence or penalty. A royal pardon does not overturn a conviction.
In modern times, by constitutional convention, the prerogative is exercised by the Sovereign on ministerial advice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_of_mercy
What happened to "we're all equal under the law?"
Now there may be some narrow circumstances when a person warrants a pardon, but the idea that a person like Biden or a governor can give anyone they choose a blanket pardon just isn't right IMHO.
To allow this to go unchallenged, is to say that any president can engage in unlawful actions and, if he isn’t impeached, he and his henchmen will totally get away with it.
It’s time to test the Constitutionality of vague, blanket pardons for unnamed crimes.
That’s not being vindictive, it should be required.
Are the Republicans up to it?
You can’t pardon anything unless it’s been detailed.
There needs to be a list of crimes he confesses to, including any accomplices.
Additionally, all charges to be pardoned must also be detailed to understand exactly what is being pardoned.
If he balks even once, the deal would be off and he’s charged for all crimes.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m of the belief you cannot pardon a crime that has not been charged, prosecuted, and sentenced.
But then again... we don’t follow anything resembling law anymore
There should be no pardon without a conviction, or at least an indictment or charge. Otherwise, it’s not really a pardon but a selective ban on law enforcement.
A question comes to my mind about Hunter
Has the age of his whores all been verified? Some look very young, how young?
Does this 10 year pardon include pedophilia, MURDER…?
If so it should be revoked by executive order when Trump comes to office, or at least re-worded.
There should be no pardon without a conviction, or at least an indictment or charge. Otherwise, it’s not really a pardon but a selective ban on law enforcement.
sure but you would get excoriated by the ‘other side of the aisle’ for wasting taxpayer money
Thank you. Regrettably, I agree with your analysis.
The pardon power is absolute. It’s one of the few absolutes in the President’s quiver.
Yes, it is normally pretty specific. Clinton’s pardon of his brother was specific, as was Bush’s. Ford’s pardon of Nixon was not.
Broad pardons happen. But not often.
Getting worked up about it feels good. But it accomplishes nothing. And who knows…one of “our” presidents might need it in the future.
The pardon power is absolute. It’s one of the few absolutes in the President’s quiver.
*********
There has to be SOME boundary to this power. Otherwise, any president could issue a blanket pardon to any member of his party on a vast list of those who could be charged in the future. Doubtful that this was intended buy America’s founding fathers.
What crimes did the J6 political prisoners, now being tortured in American prisons, commit?
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.