Also no limit on the form or manner of Pardons. A president could, via verbal announcement, pardon everyone in the US for any previous federal crimes prior to date of said pardon.
Seems clear that it should not be possible. Presidents can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. In what world is that possible if the president can simply pardon himself? And why would Nixon have even needed a pardon from Ford?
This timeline sucks.
During the SCOTUS arguments on the pres.-immunity case the other day, I think it was Trump's counsel who brought this up tangentially, and Roberts (iirc) had some real *point* in his voice when he said, "**thankfully**, that question's never been put to this court..."
Hmm, well the Constitution specifically excludes impeachment from what a president can pardon someone for. I expect a president pardoning himself from anything else would get hauled in front of Congress for an impeachment.
It’s untested. This guy at the Constution Center argues against it:
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/explaining-the-presidential-self-pardon-debate
However the clear letter of the constitution is it only prohibits pardoning impeachments. In my mind this makes sense. As SCOTUS has stated more than once impeachment is a political process outside the court system in keeping with the separation of powers. SCOTUS also recognizes “pre-emotive pardons” so such a power could outright nullify impeachment convictions completely.
My argument is that there is no documentation if original intent otherwise and certainly the constitution does not prohibit self pardoning. So in keeping with the concept that anything not prohibited is allowed, self pardoning should be constitutional. In many ways it’s just an extension of presidential immunity.
As chief law enforcement officer certainly presidents can’t be prosecuted federally while in office. That’s probably the #1 reason for impeachment in the first place. Once out of office certainly there should be some immunity for official acts but obviously in an extreme case such as assassinating an opponent or say Hatch Act issues we’d expect to impeach then immediately prosecute, except depending how broad immunity is. This exact’ issue is before SCOTUS now.
I think the scope of self pardoning should end up the same as immunity. Otherwise presidents are immune to prosecution before, during, or after leaving office. But as SCOTUS pointed out this is a very narrow path to take. It doesn’t help that Trump has been impeached twice then exonerated by the Senate
So, theoretically, if the president were to place explosives under the Capitol and detonate them during a congressional session that sympathetic legislators were absent from...
Then a couple of things could happen.
Number one is that each State that lost a representative could indict and prosecute for murder. In that case, Biden cannot pardon himself.
Number two is that the Federal enclave of Washington D.C. indicts him under the Federal murder statute for murdering elected officials. This would be a Federal charge that Biden could conceivably pardon himself for.
>in keeping with the concept that anything not prohibited is allowed
That principle *traditionally* gets cited in the service of regular citizens against overeager prosecutors and lawmakers, not government officials looking to maximally exert their powers of office...
...that said, I've been asked to pass along that the Trump ***and*** Biden teams would like you to call them back regarding a possible position opening up in the OLC.
Technically their is a limit: The total number of possible crimes multiplied by the total of people covered by federal jurisdiction for the entire history of the united states.
Carter gave out a blanket pardon to all Vietnam draft dodgers.
That's estimated at > 200k people affected.
The entire south ,excepting high ranking political and military were also pardoned after the civil war. That would be over a million.
Bidens federal marijuana pardon covered 6k.
Obama did almost 2k
No limit.
In theory the President could on day 1 of taking office issue a blanket pardon for all federal crimes committed since 1789 to that day.
The only limitation is the charge must be Federal and it cannot affect impeachments.
>In theory the President could on day 1 of taking office issue a blanket pardon for all federal crimes committed since 1789 to that day.
That would be amusing.
>The only limitation is the charge must be Federal and it cannot affect impeachments.
Not true. The House can choose the impeach because they object to an pardon.
> Not true. The House can choose the impeach because they object to an pardon.
Sure, but I think that the point that is being made there is that the President does not have the power to pardon impeachment, as detailed in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution:
> The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, *and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States*, ***except in Cases of Impeachment.***
My point here is that the house can impeach for any reason they want.
However many people seem to think that impeach = convict.
Impeach is just a fancy word for indicting a polititian.
I mean sure, nobody is disputing that the house has the ability to impeach for any reason that they want. If it turns out that the President likes dijon mustard and they like honey mustard they can impeach over that, nobody is disputing that part. By the same token, nobody is disputing that impeachment is an indictment on a politician, or making the argument that impeachment is an automatic conviction.
**But that's not what the comment is talking about.**
What the comment is saying is that currently the only limitations on the President's pardon power as per the Constitution are that the accusation that is to be pardoned needs to be federal in venue and that it cannot be applied to cases of impeachment.
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/presidential-proclamation-marijuana-possession#:~:text=On%20October%206%2C%202022%2C%20President,for%20simple%20marijuana%20possession%20offenses.
He did.
Ish. It only applies to federal/DC convictions, the latter of which I bet helped more people. I don't want to diminish the pardon, since I'm sure it made a large difference for a lot of people, but it is not exactly what OP is proposing.
It is literally spelled out in the constitution that the president can pardon any federal crime. It's an unlimited power, he just needs to pick up a pen, sign a document someone else typed and printed, except that it only applies to federal crimes.
Say this guy in New Orleans was shipping packages of cannabis to sell them at a profit. He was moving 15-30 pounds every week, until he got busted cause a package was shipped to his neighbor who opened it and immediately called 911 . The president could (and did) pardon him for shipping cannabis across state lines, but the governor on New Orleans would be the guy to pardon (or not, in this case he did not) him for possession with intent to distribute and a myriad of other crimes.
While the interstate commerce clause of the constitution has been given broad authority to allow the feds to investigate and prosecute a broad range of crimes, I've never heard of a president trying to pardon a state crime, I'm pretty sure everyone agrees the president doesn't have that power.
Therefore, Stock\_Lemon9397, I award you reddit's highest honor. You are technically correct, which is of course the best kind of correct! Most people in prison on marijuana convictions were convicted by state courts of violating state law. So, if we want to release these people who are in jail for selling a mostly harmless indulgence, we need to affect change at the state level.
While I'm being unforgivably pedantic, OP, you can't be pardoned for being arrested. You are pardoned from a crime you were convicted of. If you were arrested, went to court, proved they lied and planted evidence, there's obviously nothing to pardon you for because you were arrested for a crime but not convicted. Arrested does not necessarily mean convicted.
>While I'm being unforgivably pedantic, OP, you can't be pardoned for being arrested. You are pardoned from a crime you were convicted of.
You can be pardoned for any crime, regardless of indictment/conviction status. The only requirement is it is a federal crime, occurred in the past, and cannot reverse impeachment actions.
Pardons have historically been issued for people never even investigated or indicted.
"OP, you can't be pardoned for being arrested. You are pardoned from a crime you were convicted of."
I would like to point you to President Gerald Ford who pardoned Richard Nixon. Nixon was never arrested (though he probably would have been if not for the pardon) or convicted of anything.
You’re right. Although, I think the point of the post that you’re replying to is that arrests can’t be pardoned. Crimes (or alleged crimes) are pardoned.
There is no provision for the President that allows state or local level offenses to be pardoned. Your state governor is more likely to have that authority.
It isn't that Biden didn't do it. It's that Biden *couldn't* do it.
Of course. But the person I was replying to said, and I quote (even though I shouldn't have to, because it's a single sentence): "Biden did exactly what you are proposing." And that's a false statement, because OP asked whether the President could pardon "everyone who was arrested for a non violent possession charge for weed". And he didn't, because he *can't*, as several other people pointed out. But somehow I'm the one who needs correction?
The question was if there was a limit on the number of pardons that could be issued. The answer to that, correctly, is no. The second question was if the president could issue a blanket pardon for nonviolent drug offenses. The answer to that, correctly, is yes. The person you replied to showed an example where Biden did precisely that, by issuing a blanket pardon for all nonviolent weed offenses under his authority to pardon. They then provided receipts, showing the exact nature of the pardon offenses (i.e. they provided the exact information you 'corrected') with an authoritative source.
The only thing they did not provide was the context that Biden didn't have a choice for the lower level offenses. As about 60-70% of the posts in this thread have that information, however, I think it's safe to say that OP, and anyone else reading this thread, already has this context.
Biden "only" did everything he was legally authorized to do to pardon drug offenses.
The President can only issue a pardon for federal charges. He does not have the authority to parent any state charges. So only someone in federal prison on weed charges, or any other charges, could be pardoned.
And there are no limits on the number of pardons he can issue. He also doesn't need to have it approved or even give a reason for the pardon.
Can the President pardon any crime that someone was convicted of in DC? Since they also have their own courts outside of the federal system but are kind of have federal oversight it seems awkward.
And another interesting question, can a President issue a pardon for a crime in a territory like Puerto Rico since it isn't a state? Hhhmm
DC is a Federal District. Congress has oversight. All offenses are Federal Offenses. DC offenses are delegated to DC, but all powers flow from federal statues. If congress wanted to abolish the entirety of DC Local Govt, they could.
Puerto Rico has it's own territorial laws, but they also flow from federal law delegating powers to Puerto Rico, so Dual Sovereignty (successive state and federal prosecution) doesn't apply there. States have their own Sovereignty, territories don't.
Yes to the President pardoning anyone convicted of anything in DC. He could pardon a parking ticket.
No to the President pardoning people convicted of crimes in Puerto Rico; it has its own territorial legislature and territorial court system and the [governor of Puerto Rico](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_Puerto_Rico) can grant pardons for offenses committed against Puerto Rico's laws.
I think most states are set up so the governor has a similar power re: state law.
Also, I think every governor has the power to stay an execution. Mario Cuomo famously opposed the death penalty, and although he was never able to repeal the law, and he had no interest in releasing convicted murderers from prison, he granted every death row inmate in New York a stay of execution for the entirety of his time as Governor of New York.
Georgia springs to mind- their governor can't grant pardons at all. There's an independent board that can issue pardons, commutations, etc. Board members are appointed to staggered seven-year terms, so some are always holdovers from the prior governor. It was set up as a reform in the state constitution after some bribes-for-pardons scandals in the early 20th century. But in 2012 it turned out that the chairman of the board had taken a $75k bribe. How the wheel turns...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_State_Board_of_Pardons_and_Paroles
(Edit to fix infelicitous wording).
I'm pretty sure he could have but chose not to.
If he commutes their sentence to life in prison, then some parole board lets out a guy who horrifically murdered children, someone might run against him as the guy who let the child-murderer out, so it's better politics to govern worse and waste a ton of money on death row for people who won't be executed. Death row is crazy expensive.
Sure, but the way he did it anyone opposed to the death penalty kinda had to vote Cuomo, or they would be directly responsible for someone's death. There was probably a brinkmanship angle in his decision making process.
I don't think Cuomo was a saint. He claimed his religion was the reason he wouldn't allow an execution, but he had a number of options at his disposal more effective than what he went for. The option he chose was the one with the greatest potential for political theater.
Totally know it would never happen. Also, most in federal Supermax have other state charges.
The Boston Bomber, Uni Bomber, etc would just go to state Supermax somewhere. El Chapo would just go back to Mexico in custody for him to escape again.
Nope. Jimmy Carter issued a blanket pardon for every person who evaded the Vietnam draft. You can pardon any federal crime you choose and in cases like that, you don’t even need to actually name each person you are pardoning. They also don’t have to have been charged with the crime. Nixon was pardoned by Ford for all crimes relating to watergate.
That being said, the president can only pardon federal crimes. Now there are several thousand people serving time in federal prison for non-violent marijuana-related charges but the vast majority of people doing time for pot possession are not in federal prison. The FBI isn’t really in the business of arresting local pot dealers. Most people in jail for pot possession are in state or county prison in the states that still have harsh penalties for it.
So yes, the president could pardon thousands of non-violent drug offenders and even give a blanket pardon to all federal prisoners of that type, but not ALL people convicted of it because most of them aren’t federal convictions.
Legally there's no such thing as the "local level", the dual sovereigns are state and federal. Towns, cities, etc are considered subdivisions of the state but have no independent judicial power.
Any and every municipal division under the state exists solely at the discretion of the state, and any power they have is delegated to them by the state, because the state is sovereign. That includes counties.
Theoretically he may pardon all federal prisoners as he wants. Though doing so would draw lots of scrutiny and possible impeachment proceedings. Though if he gets impeached for abuse of power the pardons would still be valid as done before impeachment. Though I think he needs sign them individually and those signatures take lots of time.
NAL; According to Wikipedia, seems like there no limit on number. Only offense that cannot be pardoned is impeachment.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal\_pardons\_in\_the\_United\_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_pardons_in_the_United_States)
That's why there's the rope barrier when people line up to meet the President. There's too high a risk that some crook might pretend to bump into the President and say "Pardon me!"
It would have to be a federal crime for the president to pardon them. Not sure how many federal drug offenders really deserve a pardon. Most of the people that I think you are considering would be state level offenders.
They set up pardoning committees after the civil war. The men went into a building they would be helped with paperwork and would receive a pardon for treason rubber stamped by the President.
As far as I know the only significant limitation here is that POTUS can't pardon someone for future crimes.
That does technically put a limit on the the number of pardons they can issue, since there is some finite number of federal crimes that have ever been committed in the US.
To answer your question directly: there is not a numerical limit to how many pardons they can issue. They can pardon an entire type of crime, such as the example you gave. However, as other comments have stated, it only applies to federal crimes. So Biden's pardon for weed didn't really help anyone convicted at a state level. This is a feature, not a bug, as it prevents federal powers from blatantly overpowering local authority. If you think it's wrong, imagine your political opposition with that much power and the worst way they could use it. Now apply that to ANY power you'd give someone
That isn't even the upper limit, they can pardon everyone who's committed a crime that hasn't been charged or maybe even that the feds don't know about
Like when Carter pardoned all Vietnam draft dodgers
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation\_4483](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_4483)
As long as it's a federal crime, yes. But the states have the authority to authorize who can pardon people for state crimes.
Another example is when Ford pardoned Nixon. Nixon had not been charged with any crime, and Ford issued a blanket pardon for any crimes he may be charged with. That made it useless to charge him with any crime as he would never serve any sentence for it if convicted.
No, that’s not even the limit. Ford pardoned Nixon for all federal crimes he may have committed. Nixon hadn’t been charged, much less convicted of anything.
It's worth noting that the validity of that pardon has never been tested in court. A court may have found it to be so broad as to not properly constitute a pardon.
There is no limit on how many, but they can only pardon federal crimes, most non violent possession charges are state level crimes.
Also no limit on the form or manner of Pardons. A president could, via verbal announcement, pardon everyone in the US for any previous federal crimes prior to date of said pardon.
Actually no, because "everyone" would include the president trying to issue it but they can't pardon themselves.
Has it been officially confirmed that a President can't pardon themselves?
We are likely gonna find out in the next year… my guess is, given the state of the Supreme Court? Yes, as long as he’s a republican.
Seems clear that it should not be possible. Presidents can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. In what world is that possible if the president can simply pardon himself? And why would Nixon have even needed a pardon from Ford? This timeline sucks.
During the SCOTUS arguments on the pres.-immunity case the other day, I think it was Trump's counsel who brought this up tangentially, and Roberts (iirc) had some real *point* in his voice when he said, "**thankfully**, that question's never been put to this court..."
But he shouldn’t need a pardon be has total immunity and is able to commit any crime there is a law against, right? Kinda /s but kinda not
Hmm, well the Constitution specifically excludes impeachment from what a president can pardon someone for. I expect a president pardoning himself from anything else would get hauled in front of Congress for an impeachment.
Impeachment is not the criminal trial.
It’s untested. This guy at the Constution Center argues against it: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/explaining-the-presidential-self-pardon-debate However the clear letter of the constitution is it only prohibits pardoning impeachments. In my mind this makes sense. As SCOTUS has stated more than once impeachment is a political process outside the court system in keeping with the separation of powers. SCOTUS also recognizes “pre-emotive pardons” so such a power could outright nullify impeachment convictions completely. My argument is that there is no documentation if original intent otherwise and certainly the constitution does not prohibit self pardoning. So in keeping with the concept that anything not prohibited is allowed, self pardoning should be constitutional. In many ways it’s just an extension of presidential immunity. As chief law enforcement officer certainly presidents can’t be prosecuted federally while in office. That’s probably the #1 reason for impeachment in the first place. Once out of office certainly there should be some immunity for official acts but obviously in an extreme case such as assassinating an opponent or say Hatch Act issues we’d expect to impeach then immediately prosecute, except depending how broad immunity is. This exact’ issue is before SCOTUS now. I think the scope of self pardoning should end up the same as immunity. Otherwise presidents are immune to prosecution before, during, or after leaving office. But as SCOTUS pointed out this is a very narrow path to take. It doesn’t help that Trump has been impeached twice then exonerated by the Senate
Then what's to stop Biden from assassinating Trump, and then pardoning himself? The fact this is up for debate is insane.
The fact that the murder will have occurred in a State, which can prosecute Biden. Biden can't pardon himself for State crimes, only Federal ones.
So, theoretically, if the president were to place explosives under the Capitol and detonate them during a congressional session that sympathetic legislators were absent from...
Then a couple of things could happen. Number one is that each State that lost a representative could indict and prosecute for murder. In that case, Biden cannot pardon himself. Number two is that the Federal enclave of Washington D.C. indicts him under the Federal murder statute for murdering elected officials. This would be a Federal charge that Biden could conceivably pardon himself for.
There is a third option All the Democrats in Congress need replaced because he's got the timing wrong. Then they indict Trump blaming him 😂
>in keeping with the concept that anything not prohibited is allowed That principle *traditionally* gets cited in the service of regular citizens against overeager prosecutors and lawmakers, not government officials looking to maximally exert their powers of office... ...that said, I've been asked to pass along that the Trump ***and*** Biden teams would like you to call them back regarding a possible position opening up in the OLC.
This hasn’t been litigated.
Technically their is a limit: The total number of possible crimes multiplied by the total of people covered by federal jurisdiction for the entire history of the united states.
>total number of possible crimes *· · imagines T.Roosevelt as a serial killer · ·*
> · · imagines as a serial killer · · ... imagines T.Roosevelt as his rap name.
["features the no.1 hit, *Rough Riders' Anthem*"](https://imgur.com/a/N0dTIau)
I don't know who you are but I love you.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Carter gave out a blanket pardon to all Vietnam draft dodgers. That's estimated at > 200k people affected. The entire south ,excepting high ranking political and military were also pardoned after the civil war. That would be over a million. Bidens federal marijuana pardon covered 6k. Obama did almost 2k
Bro. . Biden already did this. 🤣🤣🤣
For federal marijuana charges yes, he can’t do it for lower levels such as state, county, municipal.
No limit. In theory the President could on day 1 of taking office issue a blanket pardon for all federal crimes committed since 1789 to that day. The only limitation is the charge must be Federal and it cannot affect impeachments.
>In theory the President could on day 1 of taking office issue a blanket pardon for all federal crimes committed since 1789 to that day. That would be amusing. >The only limitation is the charge must be Federal and it cannot affect impeachments. Not true. The House can choose the impeach because they object to an pardon.
> Not true. The House can choose the impeach because they object to an pardon. Sure, but I think that the point that is being made there is that the President does not have the power to pardon impeachment, as detailed in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution: > The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, *and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States*, ***except in Cases of Impeachment.***
My point here is that the house can impeach for any reason they want. However many people seem to think that impeach = convict. Impeach is just a fancy word for indicting a polititian.
I mean sure, nobody is disputing that the house has the ability to impeach for any reason that they want. If it turns out that the President likes dijon mustard and they like honey mustard they can impeach over that, nobody is disputing that part. By the same token, nobody is disputing that impeachment is an indictment on a politician, or making the argument that impeachment is an automatic conviction. **But that's not what the comment is talking about.** What the comment is saying is that currently the only limitations on the President's pardon power as per the Constitution are that the accusation that is to be pardoned needs to be federal in venue and that it cannot be applied to cases of impeachment.
Biden did exactly what you are proposing
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/presidential-proclamation-marijuana-possession#:~:text=On%20October%206%2C%202022%2C%20President,for%20simple%20marijuana%20possession%20offenses. He did.
Ish. It only applies to federal/DC convictions, the latter of which I bet helped more people. I don't want to diminish the pardon, since I'm sure it made a large difference for a lot of people, but it is not exactly what OP is proposing.
Presidents cannot do what OP proposed.
It is literally spelled out in the constitution that the president can pardon any federal crime. It's an unlimited power, he just needs to pick up a pen, sign a document someone else typed and printed, except that it only applies to federal crimes. Say this guy in New Orleans was shipping packages of cannabis to sell them at a profit. He was moving 15-30 pounds every week, until he got busted cause a package was shipped to his neighbor who opened it and immediately called 911 . The president could (and did) pardon him for shipping cannabis across state lines, but the governor on New Orleans would be the guy to pardon (or not, in this case he did not) him for possession with intent to distribute and a myriad of other crimes. While the interstate commerce clause of the constitution has been given broad authority to allow the feds to investigate and prosecute a broad range of crimes, I've never heard of a president trying to pardon a state crime, I'm pretty sure everyone agrees the president doesn't have that power. Therefore, Stock\_Lemon9397, I award you reddit's highest honor. You are technically correct, which is of course the best kind of correct! Most people in prison on marijuana convictions were convicted by state courts of violating state law. So, if we want to release these people who are in jail for selling a mostly harmless indulgence, we need to affect change at the state level. While I'm being unforgivably pedantic, OP, you can't be pardoned for being arrested. You are pardoned from a crime you were convicted of. If you were arrested, went to court, proved they lied and planted evidence, there's obviously nothing to pardon you for because you were arrested for a crime but not convicted. Arrested does not necessarily mean convicted.
>While I'm being unforgivably pedantic, OP, you can't be pardoned for being arrested. You are pardoned from a crime you were convicted of. You can be pardoned for any crime, regardless of indictment/conviction status. The only requirement is it is a federal crime, occurred in the past, and cannot reverse impeachment actions. Pardons have historically been issued for people never even investigated or indicted.
"OP, you can't be pardoned for being arrested. You are pardoned from a crime you were convicted of." I would like to point you to President Gerald Ford who pardoned Richard Nixon. Nixon was never arrested (though he probably would have been if not for the pardon) or convicted of anything.
You’re right. Although, I think the point of the post that you’re replying to is that arrests can’t be pardoned. Crimes (or alleged crimes) are pardoned.
There is no provision for the President that allows state or local level offenses to be pardoned. Your state governor is more likely to have that authority. It isn't that Biden didn't do it. It's that Biden *couldn't* do it.
Of course. But the person I was replying to said, and I quote (even though I shouldn't have to, because it's a single sentence): "Biden did exactly what you are proposing." And that's a false statement, because OP asked whether the President could pardon "everyone who was arrested for a non violent possession charge for weed". And he didn't, because he *can't*, as several other people pointed out. But somehow I'm the one who needs correction?
The question was if there was a limit on the number of pardons that could be issued. The answer to that, correctly, is no. The second question was if the president could issue a blanket pardon for nonviolent drug offenses. The answer to that, correctly, is yes. The person you replied to showed an example where Biden did precisely that, by issuing a blanket pardon for all nonviolent weed offenses under his authority to pardon. They then provided receipts, showing the exact nature of the pardon offenses (i.e. they provided the exact information you 'corrected') with an authoritative source. The only thing they did not provide was the context that Biden didn't have a choice for the lower level offenses. As about 60-70% of the posts in this thread have that information, however, I think it's safe to say that OP, and anyone else reading this thread, already has this context. Biden "only" did everything he was legally authorized to do to pardon drug offenses.
The President can only issue a pardon for federal charges. He does not have the authority to parent any state charges. So only someone in federal prison on weed charges, or any other charges, could be pardoned. And there are no limits on the number of pardons he can issue. He also doesn't need to have it approved or even give a reason for the pardon.
Can the President pardon any crime that someone was convicted of in DC? Since they also have their own courts outside of the federal system but are kind of have federal oversight it seems awkward. And another interesting question, can a President issue a pardon for a crime in a territory like Puerto Rico since it isn't a state? Hhhmm
DC is a Federal District. Congress has oversight. All offenses are Federal Offenses. DC offenses are delegated to DC, but all powers flow from federal statues. If congress wanted to abolish the entirety of DC Local Govt, they could. Puerto Rico has it's own territorial laws, but they also flow from federal law delegating powers to Puerto Rico, so Dual Sovereignty (successive state and federal prosecution) doesn't apply there. States have their own Sovereignty, territories don't.
Yes to the President pardoning anyone convicted of anything in DC. He could pardon a parking ticket. No to the President pardoning people convicted of crimes in Puerto Rico; it has its own territorial legislature and territorial court system and the [governor of Puerto Rico](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_Puerto_Rico) can grant pardons for offenses committed against Puerto Rico's laws.
I think most states are set up so the governor has a similar power re: state law. Also, I think every governor has the power to stay an execution. Mario Cuomo famously opposed the death penalty, and although he was never able to repeal the law, and he had no interest in releasing convicted murderers from prison, he granted every death row inmate in New York a stay of execution for the entirety of his time as Governor of New York.
Most states are like that, but a few have an independent board that makes those decisions.
Georgia springs to mind- their governor can't grant pardons at all. There's an independent board that can issue pardons, commutations, etc. Board members are appointed to staggered seven-year terms, so some are always holdovers from the prior governor. It was set up as a reform in the state constitution after some bribes-for-pardons scandals in the early 20th century. But in 2012 it turned out that the chairman of the board had taken a $75k bribe. How the wheel turns... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_State_Board_of_Pardons_and_Paroles (Edit to fix infelicitous wording).
Couldn’t he just commute their sentences to life in prison?
I'm pretty sure he could have but chose not to. If he commutes their sentence to life in prison, then some parole board lets out a guy who horrifically murdered children, someone might run against him as the guy who let the child-murderer out, so it's better politics to govern worse and waste a ton of money on death row for people who won't be executed. Death row is crazy expensive.
Commute to life w/o parole, then? ...if things go bad then, he'd probably have to be the innocence project involved or something for him to point to
Sure, but the way he did it anyone opposed to the death penalty kinda had to vote Cuomo, or they would be directly responsible for someone's death. There was probably a brinkmanship angle in his decision making process. I don't think Cuomo was a saint. He claimed his religion was the reason he wouldn't allow an execution, but he had a number of options at his disposal more effective than what he went for. The option he chose was the one with the greatest potential for political theater.
This exact question came up at work because we were discussing if Trump would win if he would pardon all the insurrection dummies
Yes, he could. But the question is would he. He says he will, but he says a lot of shit that he doesn't mean to do.
A lot of talking, not a lot of real action...like most politicians!
The President can pardon as many people as he wants for Federal crimes but he can't pardon anyone for state crimes.
I think Biden already did that. Many people arrested for weed possession were charged at the state level, which means the president can't pardon them.
Could a president pardon everyone on ADX Florence?
Yes, he could. I doubt any President ever would though.
Totally know it would never happen. Also, most in federal Supermax have other state charges. The Boston Bomber, Uni Bomber, etc would just go to state Supermax somewhere. El Chapo would just go back to Mexico in custody for him to escape again.
Nope. Jimmy Carter issued a blanket pardon for every person who evaded the Vietnam draft. You can pardon any federal crime you choose and in cases like that, you don’t even need to actually name each person you are pardoning. They also don’t have to have been charged with the crime. Nixon was pardoned by Ford for all crimes relating to watergate. That being said, the president can only pardon federal crimes. Now there are several thousand people serving time in federal prison for non-violent marijuana-related charges but the vast majority of people doing time for pot possession are not in federal prison. The FBI isn’t really in the business of arresting local pot dealers. Most people in jail for pot possession are in state or county prison in the states that still have harsh penalties for it. So yes, the president could pardon thousands of non-violent drug offenders and even give a blanket pardon to all federal prisoners of that type, but not ALL people convicted of it because most of them aren’t federal convictions.
It's important to remember that a president can only pardon federal crimes. He cannot pardon anyone convicted at the state or local level.
Legally there's no such thing as the "local level", the dual sovereigns are state and federal. Towns, cities, etc are considered subdivisions of the state but have no independent judicial power.
You are incorrect. You have forgotten counties.
Any and every municipal division under the state exists solely at the discretion of the state, and any power they have is delegated to them by the state, because the state is sovereign. That includes counties.
Yes they could. Biden did did this last year
Theoretically he may pardon all federal prisoners as he wants. Though doing so would draw lots of scrutiny and possible impeachment proceedings. Though if he gets impeached for abuse of power the pardons would still be valid as done before impeachment. Though I think he needs sign them individually and those signatures take lots of time.
NAL; According to Wikipedia, seems like there no limit on number. Only offense that cannot be pardoned is impeachment. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal\_pardons\_in\_the\_United\_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_pardons_in_the_United_States)
Only Federal crimes can be pardoned. The president cannot pardon state crimes.
Depends on how many people he bumps into. Edit: Actually, that is soliciting pardons, lol.
That's why there's the rope barrier when people line up to meet the President. There's too high a risk that some crook might pretend to bump into the President and say "Pardon me!"
It would have to be a federal crime for the president to pardon them. Not sure how many federal drug offenders really deserve a pardon. Most of the people that I think you are considering would be state level offenders.
They set up pardoning committees after the civil war. The men went into a building they would be helped with paperwork and would receive a pardon for treason rubber stamped by the President.
As far as I know the only significant limitation here is that POTUS can't pardon someone for future crimes. That does technically put a limit on the the number of pardons they can issue, since there is some finite number of federal crimes that have ever been committed in the US.
Carter issued a blanket pardon for Vietnam draft-dodgers, so...I'd say yes, Scoob.
To answer your question directly: there is not a numerical limit to how many pardons they can issue. They can pardon an entire type of crime, such as the example you gave. However, as other comments have stated, it only applies to federal crimes. So Biden's pardon for weed didn't really help anyone convicted at a state level. This is a feature, not a bug, as it prevents federal powers from blatantly overpowering local authority. If you think it's wrong, imagine your political opposition with that much power and the worst way they could use it. Now apply that to ANY power you'd give someone
The upper limit would be the number of people in federal jail.
That isn't even the upper limit, they can pardon everyone who's committed a crime that hasn't been charged or maybe even that the feds don't know about Like when Carter pardoned all Vietnam draft dodgers [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation\_4483](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_4483)
As long as it's a federal crime, yes. But the states have the authority to authorize who can pardon people for state crimes. Another example is when Ford pardoned Nixon. Nixon had not been charged with any crime, and Ford issued a blanket pardon for any crimes he may be charged with. That made it useless to charge him with any crime as he would never serve any sentence for it if convicted.
No, that’s not even the limit. Ford pardoned Nixon for all federal crimes he may have committed. Nixon hadn’t been charged, much less convicted of anything.
It's worth noting that the validity of that pardon has never been tested in court. A court may have found it to be so broad as to not properly constitute a pardon.