Should Bush be allowed to preemptively pardon his administration now?

[Associate Justice PiT]

Indeed, but I mean, we know that such a pardon move is doable.  I wonder about the legality of preemptively pardoning everyone before they are charged, but apparently it is doable in America.

Doable and legal are 2 different things.  Honestly, who really cared about challenging a draft dodger pardon?

     As far as I know, there is no restriction on the President's ability to grant pardons & amnesty.

[Lunar]

Indeed, but I mean, we know that such a pardon move is doable.  I wonder about the legality of preemptively pardoning everyone before they are charged, but apparently it is doable in America.

Doable and legal are 2 different things.  Honestly, who really cared about challenging a draft dodger pardon?

I think a crap ton of people cared, actually.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Indeed, but I mean, we know that such a pardon move is doable.  I wonder about the legality of preemptively pardoning everyone before they are charged, but apparently it is doable in America.

Doable and legal are 2 different things.  Honestly, who really cared about challenging a draft dodger pardon?

I think a crap ton of people cared, actually.

But anybody with the legal standing to challenge it?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Indeed, but I mean, we know that such a pardon move is doable.  I wonder about the legality of preemptively pardoning everyone before they are charged, but apparently it is doable in America.

Doable and legal are 2 different things.  Honestly, who really cared about challenging a draft dodger pardon?

     As far as I know, there is no restriction on the President's ability to grant pardons & amnesty.

It's not a restriction on his ability.  It's defining the word pardon.  In my opinion of the word, a pardon cannot exist without a charge, a conviction, and a sentence.

[Lunar]

Indeed, but I mean, we know that such a pardon move is doable.  I wonder about the legality of preemptively pardoning everyone before they are charged, but apparently it is doable in America.

Doable and legal are 2 different things.  Honestly, who really cared about challenging a draft dodger pardon?

I think a crap ton of people cared, actually.

But anybody with the legal standing to challenge it?

I guess maybe people didn't challenge it because even if they succeeded, Carter would still issue a blanket pardon of every draft-dodger convicted for 4-8 years?

[Associate Justice PiT]

Indeed, but I mean, we know that such a pardon move is doable.  I wonder about the legality of preemptively pardoning everyone before they are charged, but apparently it is doable in America.

Doable and legal are 2 different things.  Honestly, who really cared about challenging a draft dodger pardon?

     As far as I know, there is no restriction on the President's ability to grant pardons & amnesty.

It's not a restriction on his ability.  It's defining the word pardon.  In my opinion of the word, a pardon cannot exist without a charge, a conviction, and a sentence.

     Yet Ford issued a pardon absolving Nixon of any crimes he committed during his presidency. Evidently that included his involvement in Watergate, as no further proceedings occurred against him, even though he hadn't been charged yet.

[minionofmidas]

Uh... Carter obviously didn't set that precedent. Remember Ford's pardon of Nixon.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Uh... Carter obviously didn't set that precedent. Remember Ford's pardon of Nixon.

     Even before then actually. Wilson pardoned a reporter named Burdick to make him divulge his sources, since he refused to do so on the grounds that it would incriminate himself.

[Lunar]

Uh... Carter obviously didn't set that precedent. Remember Ford's pardon of Nixon.

Well, I also meant the process of pardoning unnamed or unspecified people.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Indeed, but I mean, we know that such a pardon move is doable.  I wonder about the legality of preemptively pardoning everyone before they are charged, but apparently it is doable in America.

Doable and legal are 2 different things.  Honestly, who really cared about challenging a draft dodger pardon?

     As far as I know, there is no restriction on the President's ability to grant pardons & amnesty.

It's not a restriction on his ability.  It's defining the word pardon.  In my opinion of the word, a pardon cannot exist without a charge, a conviction, and a sentence.

     Yet Ford issued a pardon absolving Nixon of any crimes he committed during his presidency. Evidently that included his involvement in Watergate, as no further proceedings occurred against him, even though he hadn't been charged yet.

I honestly forgot about that (and that makes it extra sad because I did a research paper on that).  But I still say, you can't pardon somebody until they're convicted.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Indeed, but I mean, we know that such a pardon move is doable.  I wonder about the legality of preemptively pardoning everyone before they are charged, but apparently it is doable in America.

Doable and legal are 2 different things.  Honestly, who really cared about challenging a draft dodger pardon?

     As far as I know, there is no restriction on the President's ability to grant pardons & amnesty.

It's not a restriction on his ability.  It's defining the word pardon.  In my opinion of the word, a pardon cannot exist without a charge, a conviction, and a sentence.

     Yet Ford issued a pardon absolving Nixon of any crimes he committed during his presidency. Evidently that included his involvement in Watergate, as no further proceedings occurred against him, even though he hadn't been charged yet.

I honestly forgot about that (and that makes it extra sad because I did a research paper on that).  But I still say, you can't pardon somebody until they're convicted.

     But why? Nixon wasn't convicted, or even charged in the Watergate scandal as I recall. Obviously it was considered to be a valid action since he never was charged for his role in covering it up thereafter.

     Besides, I also mentioned Wilson's pardon of George Burdick, who repeatedly declined to divulge his sources in a story he broke on fraud in the collection of customs on the grounds that it would incriminate himself. Wilson pardoned him so that he could no longer use the 5th amendment's non-self incrimination clause. The case even made it to the Supreme Court, which ruled that since Burdick refused the pardon, it was null & void. They said nothing to suggest that Wilson couldn't pardon him (which they gladly would if they thought that was the case).

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Indeed, but I mean, we know that such a pardon move is doable.  I wonder about the legality of preemptively pardoning everyone before they are charged, but apparently it is doable in America.

Doable and legal are 2 different things.  Honestly, who really cared about challenging a draft dodger pardon?

     As far as I know, there is no restriction on the President's ability to grant pardons & amnesty.

It's not a restriction on his ability.  It's defining the word pardon.  In my opinion of the word, a pardon cannot exist without a charge, a conviction, and a sentence.

     Yet Ford issued a pardon absolving Nixon of any crimes he committed during his presidency. Evidently that included his involvement in Watergate, as no further proceedings occurred against him, even though he hadn't been charged yet.

I honestly forgot about that (and that makes it extra sad because I did a research paper on that).  But I still say, you can't pardon somebody until they're convicted.

     But why? Nixon wasn't convicted, or even charged in the Watergate scandal as I recall. Obviously it was considered to be a valid action since he never was charged for his role in covering it up thereafter.

     Besides, I also mentioned Wilson's pardon of George Burdick, who repeatedly declined to divulge his sources in a story he broke on fraud in the collection of customs on the grounds that it would incriminate himself. Wilson pardoned him so that he could no longer use the 5th amendment's non-self incrimination clause. The case even made it to the Supreme Court, which ruled that since Burdick refused the pardon, it was null & void. They said nothing to suggest that Wilson couldn't pardon him (which they gladly would if they thought that was the case).

I think all of those cases should never have happened.  I just don't see how you can pardon without a conviction.  However, it wouldn't be the Congress's power to limit this.  It would be the Court's legal definition of the word "pardon."

[Associate Justice PiT]

Indeed, but I mean, we know that such a pardon move is doable.  I wonder about the legality of preemptively pardoning everyone before they are charged, but apparently it is doable in America.

Doable and legal are 2 different things.  Honestly, who really cared about challenging a draft dodger pardon?

     As far as I know, there is no restriction on the President's ability to grant pardons & amnesty.

It's not a restriction on his ability.  It's defining the word pardon.  In my opinion of the word, a pardon cannot exist without a charge, a conviction, and a sentence.

     Yet Ford issued a pardon absolving Nixon of any crimes he committed during his presidency. Evidently that included his involvement in Watergate, as no further proceedings occurred against him, even though he hadn't been charged yet.

I honestly forgot about that (and that makes it extra sad because I did a research paper on that).  But I still say, you can't pardon somebody until they're convicted.

     But why? Nixon wasn't convicted, or even charged in the Watergate scandal as I recall. Obviously it was considered to be a valid action since he never was charged for his role in covering it up thereafter.

     Besides, I also mentioned Wilson's pardon of George Burdick, who repeatedly declined to divulge his sources in a story he broke on fraud in the collection of customs on the grounds that it would incriminate himself. Wilson pardoned him so that he could no longer use the 5th amendment's non-self incrimination clause. The case even made it to the Supreme Court, which ruled that since Burdick refused the pardon, it was null & void. They said nothing to suggest that Wilson couldn't pardon him (which they gladly would if they thought that was the case).

I think all of those cases should never have happened.  I just don't see how you can pardon without a conviction.  However, it wouldn't be the Congress's power to limit this.  It would be the Court's legal definition of the word "pardon."

     I know where you're coming from. I've been pushing my alternate interpretation of the 22nd amendment for years now, but I haven't had much luck influencing them.

[A18]

"But the principal argument for reposing the power of pardoning in this case [i.e., that of treason] in the chief magistrate is this—In seasons of insurrection or rebellion, there are often critical moments, when a well timed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquility of the commonwealth; and which, if suffered to pass unimproved, it may never be possible afterwards to recall." Federalist No. 74, ¶ 4.

It's rather difficult to read this passage as not presupposing the validity of pre-conviction pardons. Not impossible, of course; but difficult.

Yes, yes; a newspaper editorial is a newspaper editorial, even when Alexander Hamilton is the author, and more than 200 years have passed since its publication date. But at least it's something. Any evidence favoring the opposite position is welcome.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Indeed, but I mean, we know that such a pardon move is doable.  I wonder about the legality of preemptively pardoning everyone before they are charged, but apparently it is doable in America.

Doable and legal are 2 different things.  Honestly, who really cared about challenging a draft dodger pardon?

     As far as I know, there is no restriction on the President's ability to grant pardons & amnesty.

It's not a restriction on his ability.  It's defining the word pardon.  In my opinion of the word, a pardon cannot exist without a charge, a conviction, and a sentence.

     Yet Ford issued a pardon absolving Nixon of any crimes he committed during his presidency. Evidently that included his involvement in Watergate, as no further proceedings occurred against him, even though he hadn't been charged yet.

I honestly forgot about that (and that makes it extra sad because I did a research paper on that).  But I still say, you can't pardon somebody until they're convicted.

     But why? Nixon wasn't convicted, or even charged in the Watergate scandal as I recall. Obviously it was considered to be a valid action since he never was charged for his role in covering it up thereafter.

     Besides, I also mentioned Wilson's pardon of George Burdick, who repeatedly declined to divulge his sources in a story he broke on fraud in the collection of customs on the grounds that it would incriminate himself. Wilson pardoned him so that he could no longer use the 5th amendment's non-self incrimination clause. The case even made it to the Supreme Court, which ruled that since Burdick refused the pardon, it was null & void. They said nothing to suggest that Wilson couldn't pardon him (which they gladly would if they thought that was the case).

I think all of those cases should never have happened.  I just don't see how you can pardon without a conviction.  However, it wouldn't be the Congress's power to limit this.  It would be the Court's legal definition of the word "pardon."

     I know where you're coming from. I've been pushing my alternate interpretation of the 22nd amendment for years now, but I haven't had much luck influencing them.

And that interpretation is...?

[Associate Justice PiT]

Indeed, but I mean, we know that such a pardon move is doable.  I wonder about the legality of preemptively pardoning everyone before they are charged, but apparently it is doable in America.

Doable and legal are 2 different things.  Honestly, who really cared about challenging a draft dodger pardon?

     As far as I know, there is no restriction on the President's ability to grant pardons & amnesty.

It's not a restriction on his ability.  It's defining the word pardon.  In my opinion of the word, a pardon cannot exist without a charge, a conviction, and a sentence.

     Yet Ford issued a pardon absolving Nixon of any crimes he committed during his presidency. Evidently that included his involvement in Watergate, as no further proceedings occurred against him, even though he hadn't been charged yet.

I honestly forgot about that (and that makes it extra sad because I did a research paper on that).  But I still say, you can't pardon somebody until they're convicted.

     But why? Nixon wasn't convicted, or even charged in the Watergate scandal as I recall. Obviously it was considered to be a valid action since he never was charged for his role in covering it up thereafter.

     Besides, I also mentioned Wilson's pardon of George Burdick, who repeatedly declined to divulge his sources in a story he broke on fraud in the collection of customs on the grounds that it would incriminate himself. Wilson pardoned him so that he could no longer use the 5th amendment's non-self incrimination clause. The case even made it to the Supreme Court, which ruled that since Burdick refused the pardon, it was null & void. They said nothing to suggest that Wilson couldn't pardon him (which they gladly would if they thought that was the case).

I think all of those cases should never have happened.  I just don't see how you can pardon without a conviction.  However, it wouldn't be the Congress's power to limit this.  It would be the Court's legal definition of the word "pardon."

     I know where you're coming from. I've been pushing my alternate interpretation of the 22nd amendment for years now, but I haven't had much luck influencing them.

And that interpretation is...?

     That you can serve an unlimited number of additional terms & still get elected to two in your own right provided that you serve no more than two years out of any of those terms. As far as I know, the Supreme Court disagrees with that, & they're probably right to do so.

[minionofmidas]

"But the principal argument for reposing the power of pardoning in this case [i.e., that of treason] in the chief magistrate is this—In seasons of insurrection or rebellion, there are often critical moments, when a well timed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquility of the commonwealth; and which, if suffered to pass unimproved, it may never be possible afterwards to recall." Federalist No. 74, ¶ 4.

It's rather difficult to read this passage as not presupposing the validity of pre-conviction pardons. Not impossible, of course; but difficult.

Yes, yes; a newspaper editorial is a newspaper editorial, even when Alexander Hamilton is the author, and more than 200 years have passed since its publication date. But at least it's something. Any evidence favoring the opposite position is welcome.

It shows what people were thinking the legal definition of "pardon" was. Good enough for me unless someone points out that other people of the same era used a different definition (the best thing to look for, of course, is British law of the time...)
Now, as to the notion of pardoning oneself... the Constitution's text doesn't say anything against it unless it is considered to be inherent in the notion of a "pardon" - for it's certainly very much counterintuitive. That's why it would be cool to see the earliest possible comment on the question.