The preemptive pardon debate was won by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 who urged that pardons be permitted before conviction. If you're going to pardon them anyway, there's no point in wasting time and money going through a trial.
Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President "...shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
It doesn't say anything about convictions, or even charges. It just says offenses.
The President can't pardon someone violating a state law, or nullify a civil judgement, and and his power doesn't extend to convictions handed down in an impeachment proceeding. But other than that, his powers of pardon are "unlimited."
The seminal Supreme Court case is Ex parte Garland (1867). Justice Stephen J. Field wrote in the majority (5-4) decision that that the President's pardoning power is ''unlimited,'' and ''It extends to every offense 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.''
When Ford pardoned Nixon he was sued, but a Federal District Court in Michigan rejected the suit for a declaratory judgment that President Ford's unconditional pardon of Richard M. Nixon was unconstitutional. The court found that the President had the constitutional power to grant a pre-indictment pardon, citing Ex parte Garland in its support. Ford had pardoned Nixon for "all offenses against the United States which he … has committed or may have committed or taken part in" between the date of his inauguration in 1969 and his resignation in August 1974.
So Nixon was pardoned for crimes he might have committed, but no one yet knew about.
One big unanswered question on such broad, unlimited pardon power is, can the President pardon himself?
Wouldn't that be interesting.
Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President "...shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
It doesn't say anything about convictions, or even charges. It just says offenses.
The President can't pardon someone violating a state law, or nullify a civil judgement, and and his power doesn't extend to convictions handed down in an impeachment proceeding. But other than that, his powers of pardon are "unlimited."
The seminal Supreme Court case is Ex parte Garland (1867). Justice Stephen J. Field wrote in the majority (5-4) decision that that the President's pardoning power is ''unlimited,'' and ''It extends to every offense 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.''
When Ford pardoned Nixon he was sued, but a Federal District Court in Michigan rejected the suit for a declaratory judgment that President Ford's unconditional pardon of Richard M. Nixon was unconstitutional. The court found that the President had the constitutional power to grant a pre-indictment pardon, citing Ex parte Garland in its support. Ford had pardoned Nixon for "all offenses against the United States which he … has committed or may have committed or taken part in" between the date of his inauguration in 1969 and his resignation in August 1974.
So Nixon was pardoned for crimes he might have committed, but no one yet knew about.
One big unanswered question on such broad, unlimited pardon power is, can the President pardon himself?
Wouldn't that be interesting.
