Pardoning Power: Congress' Pardon Law Possibility

The power to pardon someone for a federal crime in the United States lies solely with the President, and cannot be overruled by Congress. This power is derived from Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the US Constitution, which states that the President shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. While Congress has attempted to limit the effect of pardons through legislation, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the President's pardon power is unlimited and not subject to legislative control. This power has its roots in early English law, where the Crown had the exclusive right to grant mercy for criminal punishment. While Congress cannot pass a law to pardon someone, it does have other constitutional tools at its disposal, such as oversight and impeachment, to constrain the President's pardon power.

The President's clemency power is conferred by the Constitution

The President's clemency power is a constitutional authority granted by Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution. This power allows the President to grant reprieves, pardons, and other forms of clemency for federal offences and those prosecuted by the US Attorney for the District of Columbia in the D.C. Superior Court. It is important to note that this power does not extend to state law offences, which fall under the jurisdiction of state authorities.

The President's clemency power is broad and has been described as "unlimited" by the Supreme Court, except in cases of impeachment. This power is not subject to legislative control, and Congress cannot limit the effect of a pardon or exclude any class of offenders. The President may choose to provide reasons for granting clemency or remain silent, and the grants are a matter of public record.

The historical roots of the President's clemency power can be traced back to early English law, and it has been recognised by the Supreme Court as a significant authority. The power has been exercised by many Presidents, including Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon after Watergate and Jimmy Carter's pardon of Vietnam draft dodgers.

While Congress generally cannot constrain the President's clemency power through legislation, they do have other constitutional tools at their disposal, such as oversight and impeachment. Additionally, Congress has facilitated the exercise of clemency power by funding positions in the Department of Justice to assist in considering clemency petitions.

In conclusion, the President's clemency power, as conferred by the Constitution, provides a broad authority to grant pardons and reprieves for federal offences. This power is an essential tool for the President to carry out their constitutional duties and provide leniency to those seeking relief from criminal punishment.

Congress cannot limit the effects of a presidential pardon

The Constitution grants the President the "Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." This power, which has roots in early English law, has been recognized by the Supreme Court as quite broad. In the 1886 case Ex parte Garland, the Court referred to the President's authority to pardon as unlimited, except in cases of impeachment, extending to every offence known to the law. The Court held that the power of the President to pardon "is not subject to legislative control. Congress can neither limit the effect of his pardon, nor exclude from its exercise any class of offenders."

The Supreme Court has also alluded to the possibility of impeachment as a check on the misuse of the power to pardon. For example, in Ex parte Grossman, the Court indicated that a hypothetical effort by the President to deprive a court of power to enforce its orders through successive pardons would suggest a resort to impeachment. However, the Court has also acknowledged that the power to pardon is not entirely unlimited. In Burdick v. United States, the Court held that a pardon could be legally issued and was sufficient for immunity, but it was also the right of the recipient to refuse it.

Despite the Supreme Court's rigid view of the limits of legislative authority over pardons, Congress may still have a role to play in the exercise of the pardon power through other legal and constitutional processes. For instance, there is historical precedent for Congress facilitating the exercise of the power by funding positions in the Department of Justice to assist in considering clemency petitions. Additionally, Congress has invoked its Article I authority to conduct oversight as a more indirect constraint on the use of the pardon power. For example, in the wake of controversial pardons by Donald Trump, a House panel held a hearing about how to prevent the abuse of the clemency power.

While the President's pardon power is broad, there are some well-recognized limits on its exercise. It only covers federal crimes and may not be used to obstruct justice. Additionally, a self-pardon is constitutionally suspect, and the DOJ has issued opinions stating that such a pardon would be illegitimate.

Congress has other tools to use in relation to the President's pardon authority

Congress cannot pass a law to pardon someone. The President has the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. This power is granted by Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States.

However, Congress has other tools at its disposal in relation to the President's pardon authority:

Oversight

Congress can conduct oversight as an indirect constraint on the use of the pardon power. For example, in 1974, there were hearings before the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice of the House Committee on the Judiciary regarding the pardon of Richard M. Nixon.

Impeachment

Impeachment is another tool that Congress can use to check the President's pardon authority. In Ex parte Grossman (1925), the Supreme Court indicated that a hypothetical effort by the President to deprive a court of its power through successive pardons would suggest a resort to impeachment.

Constitutional Amendment

Congress can also propose a constitutional amendment to provide a mechanism for congressional disapproval of pardons. For example, in 1974, S.J.Res. 241 proposed an amendment to allow for congressional disapproval of pardons.

Funding and Legislation

While Congress cannot directly limit the effect of a pardon, it has historically facilitated the exercise of the pardon power by funding positions in the Department of Justice to assist in considering clemency petitions. For instance, in 1865, an Act authorized the Attorney General to employ and provide salaries for "pardon clerks."

Statutory Appropriations

Congress must also ensure that its statutory appropriations do not encroach on the powers of the President. In Office of Pers. Mgmt. v. Richmond (1990), Justice Byron White noted that such restrictions may be invalid if they "encroach on the powers reserved to another branch of the Federal Government."

The President's pardon power extends to offences in the District of Columbia

The President's pardon power is derived from Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the US Constitution, which states that the President "shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." This power is known as the clemency power, and it includes the authority to pardon individuals and provide other forms of relief from criminal punishment. The Supreme Court has interpreted this power broadly, confirming in Ex parte Garland that it is "unlimited" and extends to every offence known to the law.

While the President's pardon power is extensive, it is not without limits. The power is limited to federal offences and offences prosecuted by the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States in the D.C. Superior Court. This means that the President cannot pardon violations of state laws; instead, individuals seeking a pardon for a state offence should contact the relevant state authorities, typically the governor or a state board of pardons and/or paroles.

The President's pardon power extends to offences committed in the District of Columbia, as established in United States v. Perkins (1885). This means that the President can pardon individuals who commit federal offences against the District of Columbia, further reinforcing the broad scope of the President's clemency power.

While Congress cannot directly limit the President's pardon power, it does have some tools at its disposal to influence the pardon process. For example, Congress can conduct oversight, as seen in the case of the pardon of Richard M. Nixon, where Congress held hearings to review the pardon decision. Additionally, Congress has the power of impeachment, which can serve as a check on the misuse of the pardon power. Furthermore, Congress has played a role in facilitating the exercise of pardon power by funding positions in the Department of Justice to assist in considering clemency petitions.

The President cannot pardon a private wrong

The President of the United States has the power to pardon individuals convicted of federal offenses. This power is granted by Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which states that the President "shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." This power is known as the clemency power and includes the ability to pardon individuals and provide other forms of relief from criminal punishment.

While the President has broad authority to grant pardons, there are some limitations to this power. One important limitation is that the President cannot pardon a private wrong. This principle was established in the case of Angle v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Minneapolis R. in 1894. The Court held that while the President may pardon and relieve a wrongdoer from the punishment the public exacts for the wrong, neither the executive nor the legislature can pardon a private wrong or relieve the wrongdoer from civil liability to the individual they have wronged.

This means that the President's pardon power is limited to offenses against the public, and does not extend to civil wrongs or wrongs committed against individuals. For example, the President can pardon someone held in criminal contempt in federal court, but not someone held in civil contempt. The rationale for this distinction is that criminal contempt is considered "punitive," while civil contempt is considered "remedial."

The limitation on the President's pardon power regarding private wrongs is an important safeguard to protect the rights of individuals and ensure that wrongdoers are held accountable for their actions towards specific people. It maintains the separation of powers and upholds the checks and balances within the US government.

In conclusion, while the President of the United States has the power to pardon individuals for federal offenses, this power does not extend to private wrongs. The President cannot pardon or relieve an individual from civil liability for wrongs committed against another person. This limitation on the pardon power is an essential aspect of the US constitutional system and helps maintain a balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.

Frequently asked questions