Presidential Pardons

I agree Bush hasn’t abused it as much as Clinton did, but I still think the whole concept is screwed up and smacks of favoritism and unequal justice.

can he pardon himself,

nothing against him, I just remembering people wanting to have him brought to trial for some supposed cover up or something.

[quote]Spry wrote:
How do pardon’s work anyway?

How can the executive just say that the judicary has applied the law correctly but nah-uh set the criminal free?[/quote]

That’s easy, the President exercises his power under the consitution:

United States Constitution, Article 2:

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

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 Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
can he pardon himself, [/quote]
Se previous post. He can pardon himself unless he has been impeached. So, in practice, no the President cannot pardon himself.

The thing I never understood was how you could be pardoned before a conviction. Does anyone know if that has ever been challenged in a court?

Here’s a Bush pardon I just read about.

I don’t know who this is, never heard his music before, but LIQUID cocaine? 1.4M worth of it? That’s a lot of cocaine, in liquid form.

I never knew you could liquify cocaine. That sounds really hardcore. I am actually curious as to what it would be like to do some liquid cocaine…

The pardon power only applies to those who have been CONVICTED of federal crimes. Otherwise there are no limitations on the president’s use of it (except of course in cases of impeachment).

[quote]pushharder wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
The pardon power only applies to those who have been CONVICTED of federal crimes. Otherwise there are no limitations on the president’s use of it (except of course in cases of impeachment).

I think you are incorrect here. I believe it has been used outside of convictions. Am I wrong?

[Edit] I’m not wrong. Ford pardoned Nixon. Nixon had not been convicted.[/quote]

Sorry. You’re right. A conviction is not required. An ACCUSATION of a federal crime (the offense can’t be civil) is enough.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
pushharder wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
The pardon power only applies to those who have been CONVICTED of federal crimes. Otherwise there are no limitations on the president’s use of it (except of course in cases of impeachment).

I think you are incorrect here. I believe it has been used outside of convictions. Am I wrong?

[Edit] I’m not wrong. Ford pardoned Nixon. Nixon had not been convicted.

Sorry. You’re right. A conviction is not required. An ACCUSATION of a federal crime (the offense can’t be civil) is enough. [/quote]
I don’t see that Ford even limited the pardon to crimes for which Nixon had already been accused. There isn’t any mention of this standard in Article II. So I really don’t even think that the President is limited to convictions or even accusations.

From Fords announcement …

Now, therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from July (January) 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this eighth day of September, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and seventy-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and ninety-ninth.

[quote]Journeyman wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
pushharder wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
The pardon power only applies to those who have been CONVICTED of federal crimes. Otherwise there are no limitations on the president’s use of it (except of course in cases of impeachment).

I think you are incorrect here. I believe it has been used outside of convictions. Am I wrong?

[Edit] I’m not wrong. Ford pardoned Nixon. Nixon had not been convicted.

Sorry. You’re right. A conviction is not required. An ACCUSATION of a federal crime (the offense can’t be civil) is enough.
I don’t see that Ford even limited the pardon to crimes for which Nixon had already been accused. There isn’t any mention of this standard in Article II. So I really don’t even think that the President is limited to convictions or even accusations.

From Fords announcement …

Now, therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from July (January) 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this eighth day of September, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and seventy-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and ninety-ninth. [/quote]

No, seems there doesn’t even have to be a formal accusation or anything. Enough that there something’s come to light that could be a federal crime.