https://online.ucpress.edu/fsr/article-abstract/33/5/301/117729/Are-Blanket-Pardons-Constitutional?redirectedFrom=fulltext The pardon power of the U.S. president is very broad. A president may pardon any federal crime committed prior to the date of the pardon, and may issue pardons to individuals or groups of persons for offenses committed in connection with multiple discrete events. However, the Constitution’s text and British and American precedent suggest that a valid pardon presupposes awareness by the President of that which is being pardoned as a logical and legal precondition for an exercise of judgment about the propriety of granting clemency. Accordingly, a pardon of the type issued by President Gerald Ford to former President Richard Nixon, purporting to pardon Nixon for all federal offenses committed during his terms of office, irrespective of Ford’s knowledge of them, should be deemed unconstitutional.
Yet the pardon was done. I assume the legality of the pardon could still be challenged in court.I am guessing that issuing such a pardon doesn’t set a precedent as it is unconstitutional. I am also guessing that the legal minds back then did consider the constitutionality of the pardon but considered it politically expedient to move the country past an event likely to tear the country apart. It was likely considered a healing ointment.
Why should we be concerned about a 50 year old blanket pardon? Because the barn door has been left open and a flurry of blanket pardons are likely to rush through the door.
Today the political turmoil, 50 years after the Ford pardon, is just as unsettling as then. Unforeseen consequence of an unconstitutional act?
I think so. Political leaders then could not phantom a return to such times. Best to sweep it under the rug. And here we are.
Yet, none of those pardons seemed to hit as close to home for the presidents who issued them, nor did they cover as broad a range of activity over as long a period of time, experts said.
A federal judge sharply criticized “blanket pardons” for people charged in connection to the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.
“Blanket pardons for all January 6 defendants would be beyond frustrating and disappointing,” U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, who was appointed by President-elect Donald Trump, said on Tuesday.
I doubt that. Does anyone think that Jerry Ford had full knowledge of everything illegal that Nixon had done, when the pardon was issued?
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.
People often like to reference the Nixon pardon as some sort of benchmark but it isn’t the worst in history or the most expansive.
Andrew Jackson pardoned Jefferson Davis, the former President of the Confederacy, as well as every person directly or indirectly involved in the “insurrection or rebellion” for the crime of treason against USA.
Nothing else, not even if Trump pardons J6 people, comes even close to that.
Your link does seem to agree as to why the pardon was issued. It is believed that a trial of Richard Nixon, if it became necessary, could not fairly begin until a year or more has elapsed. In the meantime, the tranquility to which this nation has been restored by the events of recent weeks could be irreparably lost by the prospects of bringing to trial a former President of the United States.
The powers to be could have cared less on what crimes Nixon had committed. They wanted it swept under the rug. “to move the country past an event likely to tear the country apart.”
Bush 41 pardon of the “Iran-Contra” conspirators stopped all the investigations. So other ops, and the involvement of a second rate actor, would never come to light.
People, myself included, tend to limit themselves to what they have personally experienced.
The turmoil within the nation after Civil War must have been at an epic level in which the post Nixon or current situation barely merit a blib.
Pursuing those involved would have in effect continued the war and might have permanently torn the union apart.
So we now down the the degree of turmoil. Methinks the nation could have survived a trial of Nixon as it has survived the trial of the J6 people.
Don’t circumvent the legal system.
The United States government falsely claimed that a second incident occurred on August 4, 1964, between North Vietnamese and United States ships in the waters of the Gulf of Tonkin. Originally, US military claims blamed North Vietnam for the confrontation and the ostensible, but in fact imaginary, incident on August 4. Later investigation revealed that the second attack never happened. The National Security Agency an agency of the US Defense Department, had deliberately skewed intelligence to create the impression that an attack had been carried out.
I had coworkers who were convinced the 9/11 hijackers were from Iraq.
I’m not aware of any court decisions on the pardon power. It’s hard to see how procedurally any cases would actually get into court. The courts’ doctrine on standing limits their jurisdiction to actual disputes between parties that have an interest in the action. I can’t think of any third party that might have standing to challenge a pardon in the first place.
Congress probably can’t pass any laws creating guidelines. They don’t have any authority to do that (Congress can only legislate on topics that the Constitution says they can legislate on), and since the pardon power is granted solely to the President it would probably be blocked by separation of powers considerations.
If a pardoned person engages in a crime the victim could conceivably claim the pardon was excessive and sue. Then the court could decide what is excessive.
If Congress did pass such a law the same considerations would make a court challenge difficult. Congress might get away with it. Would a President sign such a law limiting his powers?
Unless you make a deal with a future president to pardon you in the future.
Hmmm, maybe a decent plot for a mystery thriller would be a president that really wants to murder someone (they know something, they have something, they hate them, revenge, whatever reason), but they want to be sure of escaping justice. So they make a dirty deal to get someone elected president, then murder the person (even in broad daylight), and then the new president pardons them, and all is well.
(Obviously this would only work in fiction because murder can, and likely would, be a State prosecuted crime which IIRC cannot be pardoned by a president.)
Maybe 10 minutes after their last pardon has gone through?
But does the president have the power to change the constitutional rights afforded to a president? I don’t think so, any such change would probably have to go through the onerous constitutional amendment process. I’m not a scholar of the constitution in any way, so this could all be bunk.
On what grounds would they sue the President? The President didn’t commit that crime - nor did the President breach any legal duty or obligation to the victim. What’s the claim?
