(Presidential) Proclamation 4311 may come back to haunt us

•••
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 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.

------------

(emphasis added)

Forty-two years after the fact, I remain as convinced as I was on the day it was announced that Ford's "pardon" of Nixon "for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed" was an outrage to justice and fair and wise judicial principles.

The very idea that a president could pre-empt the finding of facts in a trial by a court in a pending or a prospective criminal case struck me then as it does today me as preposterous, properly speaking.

Because the then so-called responsible officials in the legislature and judiciary allowed Ford's pardon to go without challenge and reversal--by supreme court review, if that proved necessary--we're faced today with the possibility that President Obama might present us with a new instance of this outrage by promulgating a pre-emptive pardon of Hillary Clinton "for all offenses against the United States which she, ..., has committed or may have committed."

I rather expect that our former Constitutional-law professor president shall do this.

If so, he has another 112 days in which to act since-- at least so far as I am aware--it's still not permitted for the president of the United States to pardon herself.

HAAAA!HAAAAA! HAAAA!HAAAAA!HAAAA!HAAAAA!HAAAA!HAAAAA!HAAAA!HAAAAA!HAAAA!HAAAAA!HAAAA!HAAAAA!HAAAA!HAAAAA!
HAAAA!HAAAAA!HAAAA!HAAAAA!HAAAA!HAAAAA!HAAAA!HAAAAA!
HAAAA!HAAAAA!
HAAAA!HAAAAA!

Yeah, blanket pre-emptive pardons like that shouldn't be allowed.

I also think that pardons should not be allowed on or after election day, if the current President (a) loses, or (b) is ineligible for another term. In other words, don't do it unless you think it's defensible and won't screw up your politics. If you have to wait until after your last election has passed, it's dirty.

Just stating the obvious, perhaps, but:

Can an innocent person be pardoned? Doesn't a pardon imply that the person pardoned has in fact committed a crime? Then by 'pardoning' Nixon before he was convicted, Ford was actually saying that Nixon was guilty. If Obama pardoned Hillary, it would surely send the same message. It would kill her chances of election.

>4 madpoet:

A pardon of "all offenses against the United States which she, ..., has committed or may have committed" allows the person pardoned and all his or her defenders to argue and claim --

..." I was never charged, tried or judged guilty of that ... (___fill in the blank__)"

allows the pardoned person to escape without being held legally to account-- the pardon effectively pre-empts all holding of account

thus, allows the pardoned person to skip trial, to skip conviction, to skip sentencing and to go straight to "get out of jail free". Why? Why in this case should these extremely generous privileges be granted? On what grounds? MANY other people don't get them. Why, if she's pardoned, should she get them?

Ex Parte Garland.

>6 MMcM:

Well, Ex parte Garland (71 U.S. 333) is in error--specifically in point #9 :

" 9. 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." ---

since the Congress has ultimate authority to legislate--including to amend the Constitution itself. Congress could revoke the presidential pardon by amending the Constitution, striking that part of it and then pass that amendment over the president's veto. Congress could even, if it chose, eliminate the Executive branch altogether.

Furtermore, Ex parte Garland itself could be overturned on review by a ruling of a sitting Supreme Court.

>7 proximity1: Except that once proposed a constitutional amendment still have to be ratified by the states before its adopted. So, no, the Congress cannot change the constitution by itself.