Constitution says preemptive pardons are invalid

[Contumacious]

The power of pardon conferred by the Constitution upon the President is unlimited except in cases of impeachment. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment. The power is not subject to legislative control.

Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1866)

Ex parte Garland

supreme.justia.com

Stand corrected.

SCOTUS lated ruled that accepting the pardon means you are guilty.

Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79, 91 (1915)​

 

[Nostra]

The power of pardon conferred by the Constitution upon the President is unlimited except in cases of impeachment. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment. The power is not subject to legislative control.

Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1866)

Ex parte Garland

supreme.justia.com

After the commission of the offense.

They all clearly committed offenses against the US, or the pardons are in violation of the Constitution.

 

[Marener]

OK so by accepting it they ADMIT they committed at least one crime against the US.

Nope. Courts have ruled on this in the recent past as well. Pardons have served different purposes in different circumstances, including protecting innocent people who were wrongly convicted.

Accepting Pardon Doesn't Admit Guilt

An interesting Tenth Circuit decision yesterday in U.S. v. Lorance, by Judge David Ebel, joined by Judges Robert Bacharach and Gregory Phillips. The

reason.com

 

[Marener]

SCOTUS lated ruled that accepting the pardon means you were guilty.

Not exactly. First, it’s in dicta, meaning it doesn’t necessarily have legal standing.

Second, Burdick says it carries the implication of guilt, which is far from the same as carrying actual legal guilt. Implication is not fact.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Nope. Courts have ruled on this in the recent past as well. Pardons have served different purposes in different circumstances, including protecting innocent people who were wrongly convicted.

Accepting Pardon Doesn't Admit Guilt

An interesting Tenth Circuit decision yesterday in U.S. v. Lorance, by Judge David Ebel, joined by Judges Robert Bacharach and Gregory Phillips. The

reason.com

except a supreme court case says otherwise. It is linked in another thread.

 

[Contumacious]

Not exactly. First, it’s in dicta, meaning it doesn’t necessarily have legal standing.

Second, Burdick says it carries the implication of guilt, which is far from the same as carrying actual legal guilt. Implication is not fact.

1. U.S. v. Richards​

   91 F. Supp. 323 (D.D.C. 1950) Cited 1 times
   It makes him, as it were, a new man, and gives him a new credit and capacity." Ex parte Garland, 1860, 4 Wall. 333, 380, 71 U.S. 333, 380, 18 L.Ed. 366. Yet some years later the Court in Burdick v. U.S., 1914, 236 U.S. 79, 91, 35 S.Ct. 267, 269, 59 L.Ed. 476, referred to the "confession of guilt implied in the acceptance of a pardon".

 

[Woodznutz]

Not sure what you're implying, but plea deals are ok. If every case went to trial, we would need 5 times as many courthouses.

I mean pleading to a lesser crime, a crime they didn't commit.

 

[Couchpotato]

Pardons have been used to forgive someone wrongfully convicted.

What has Fauci been convicted of?

 

[Marener]

except a supreme court case says otherwise. It is linked in another thread.

It really doesn’t. The case (US v Lorance) cited in my link explains:

 

[g5000]

The constitution says offenses are pardoned. It does not say convictions are pardoned.

Trump didn't have any problems pardoning people who hadn't been convicted. Are you sure you didn't just make this up now?

When are you ever going to learn?

IT'S OKAY IF TRUMP DOES IT!

I've been saying for years I should have T-shirts made.

 

[Couchpotato]

Trump pardoned lots of people who hadn't been convicted. Lots of presidents have.

Besides Nixon how many blanket pardons have been issued for unnamed crimes spanning multiple years and in some cases decades?

 

[Marener]

Besides Nixon how many blanket pardons have been issued for unnamed crimes spanning multiple years and in some cases decades?

Can’t think of any. But there have been plenty of pardons that excused unnamed crimes, uncharged crimes, and unconvicted crimes.

The fact that we all agree it happened with Nixon kind of makes it not unprecedented.

 

[Couchpotato]

Can’t think of any. But there have been plenty of pardons that excused unnamed crimes, uncharged crimes, and unconvicted crimes.

Like??? Iust 4 short years ago amid speculation that Trump was considering granting pardons to his family members oddly similar to the ones Biden just issued the idea was the end of juris prudence and proof that Trump was indeed Hitler reincarnated who had no respect for the rule of law and a tacit admission of guilt. Now that Biden has actually done it it’s no big deal. Am I right?

 

[Marener]

Like??? Iust 4 short years ago amid speculation that Trump was considering granting pardons to his family members oddly similar to the ones Biden just issued the idea was the end of juris prudence and proof that Trump was indeed Hitler reincarnated who had no respect for the rule of law and a tacit admission of guilt. Now that Biden has actually done it it’s no big deal. Am I right?

It’s clearly a big deal, but we all acknowledge that Trump has made no secret of his desire to go after his political opponents and does not abide by the long held traditions of keeping the president out of the DoJ decisions.

You seem to be missing the forest for the trees.

 

[Foxfyre]

Nixon had resigned before Ford's pardon. He therefore was not going to be impeached.

There was some question about that. It was deeply resented and it is almost certain that preemptive pardon of Nixon that cost Ford the 1976 election and he went down in history as the only President who was never elected Vice President or President. And it ushered in Jimmy Carter who had a disastrous presidency.

 

[g5000]

There was some question about that.

No, there is no question. You can't impeach an EX-president.

As for Ford, he did the right thing though he knew it would cost him his job.

Too bad we no longer have politicians with some spine like that.

 

[Foxfyre]

No, there is no question. You can't impeach an EX-president.

As for Ford, he did the right thing though he knew it would cost him his job.

Too bad we no longer have politicians with some spine like that.

Then since Nixon had been indicted for no crime, what was the purpose of the pardon? There was much talk of impeaching Trump a third time in hopes of getting a Senate conviction so that he could not run for office again. That really was what the J6 Committee was all about. But when they could come up with no impeachable offense it didn't happen.

 

[Couchpotato]

It’s clearly a big deal, but we all acknowledge that Trump has made no secret of his desire to go after his political opponents and does not abide by the long held traditions of keeping the president out of the DoJ decisions.

You seem to be missing the forest for the trees.

Oh right. Because Trump. Got it. You should have just said that.

 

[Marener]

Oh right. Because Trump. Got it. You should have just said that.

Because of what Trump has said and done.

 

[Couchpotato]

Because of what Trump has said and done.

How many of Trumps political opponents did he indict? Now do the same thing for Biden….