Carte Blanche.
why pardon someone whom did nothing you ask?
- Thread starter GregV814
- Start date
Well it hasn't been viewed that way since 1886. 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 offense known to the law" and able to be exercised "either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment."
In US v Klein (1871) the court held "To the executive alone is entrusted the power of pardon; and it is granted without limit." With the obvious exception for impeachment.
Just make sure to tell Kamala that she should have been president for the last year or twoI'd love to have the new administration find Biden was incapable and incompetent, and everything he signed in the past year is null and void. Then move in with a whole new round of lawsuits.
I know, not very likely. Biden is already down and out, won't really know what's going on.They'll let him finish out his last days in peace.
Yep, she should have used the 25th a long time ago.
I was going to post the shorter version of the same....but, yeah, what Biden did will stand up as unassailable. What a complete POS.
BOP
Well-Known Member
Arkancide?
I believe Trump just signed an executive order to that effect as well.
LightRoasted
If I may ...
For your consideration ...
Well, Biden did not grant amnesty. Also, he did not specify what these people have been specifically pardoned for, as was the case then. There were also requirements set forth from which the person pardoned, said A.H. Garland, had to comply with before the pardon became effective.
While it is true that the SCOTUS said "pardon as "unlimited" except in cases of impeachment, extending to "every offense known to the law", Biden did not specify which "known laws" were violated. Therefor these are not proper or perfected pardons, and should hold not any legal weight.
Biden gave blanket unqualified pardons, without amnesty. And there is a difference between the two, pardon vs amnesty. I'm betting these pardons will be deemed flawed, with those given pardons still up for huge legal problems. Without amnesty, they are still up for convictions. In addition, it you look at the supposed President's signature, it was done with an auto sign machine, where others are with his, (possible), actual signature. Prepare the gallows!
Hunter's pardon.
Every individual pardon on the 19th
Biden did not personally sign these pardons, therefore they have no force or effect.
Amnesty vs. pardon
"Grant to the said A. H. Garland a FULL PARDON AND AMNESTY for all offences by him committed, arising from participation, direct or implied, in the said Rebellion, conditioned as follows: this pardon to begin and take effect from the day on which the said A. H. Garland shall take the oath prescribed in the proclamation of the President, dated May 29th, 1865, and to be void and of no effect if the said A. H. Garland shall hereafter at any time acquire any property whatever in slaves, or make use of slave labor, and that he first pay all costs which may have accrued in any proceedings hitherto instituted against his person or property. And upon the further condition that the said A. H. Garland shall notify the Secretary of State in writing that he has received and accepted the foregoing pardon."
Look at how other pardons he issued were written here:
www.justice.gov
Here is one of Biden's pardons. A huge difference from the blanket pardons he's issued. It specifically spells out what laws were violated and conditions set forth:
LOTFOLAH KAVEH AFRASIABI
A FULL PARDON FOR THOSE OFFENSES charged in an indictment (Docket No. 1:2 l-cr-00046 (ERK) (RER)) filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on January 25, 2021, for violations of (Count One): Sections 371 and 3551 et seq, Title 18, United States Code; (Count Two): Sections 2 and 3551 et seq, Title 18, and Sections 612 and 618(a)(l), Title 22, United States Code; and (Forfeiture Count): Sections 981(a)(l)(C), Title 18, Section 853(p), Title 21, and Section 2461 ( c ), Title 28, United States Code.
I CONDITION THE PARDON UPON THE FOLLOWING TERMS:
(1) the said KAVEH LOTFOLAH AFRASIABI, AKA LOTFOLAH KAvAH AFRASIABI, shall not commit any additional crime against the United States or in violation of the laws of the United States subsequent to the acceptance of this Pardon;
(2) the said KAVEH LOTFOLAH AFRASIABI, AKA LOTFOLAH KAVAH AFRASIABI, shall waive and release any all claims, demands, rights, and causes of action ofwhatsoever kind and nature against the United States of America, its agents, servants, and employees;
(3) the said KAVEH LOTFOLAH AFRASIABI, AKA LO"J'FOLAH KA v AH AFRASIABI, shall waive any and all claims to funds already seized as part ofthe prosecution of.offenses subject to this Pardon; and
(4) the said KAVEH LOTFOLAH AFRASIABI, AKA LOTFOLAH KAVAH AFRASIABI, shall not accept or otherwise receive any financial benefit directly or indirectly, in any marmer or amount, from any book, movie, or other publication or production, in any form or media, about his situation; IF AT ANY TIME the said KAVEH LOTFOLAH AFRASIABI, AKA LOTFOLAH KAVAH AFRASIABI, violates one or more ofthe aforementioned terms, as determined by me in my complete discretion ( or by a future President in his or her complete discretion), this Pardon may be voided in its entirety"
Well, Biden did not grant amnesty. Also, he did not specify what these people have been specifically pardoned for, as was the case then. There were also requirements set forth from which the person pardoned, said A.H. Garland, had to comply with before the pardon became effective.
While it is true that the SCOTUS said "pardon as "unlimited" except in cases of impeachment, extending to "every offense known to the law", Biden did not specify which "known laws" were violated. Therefor these are not proper or perfected pardons, and should hold not any legal weight.
Biden gave blanket unqualified pardons, without amnesty. And there is a difference between the two, pardon vs amnesty. I'm betting these pardons will be deemed flawed, with those given pardons still up for huge legal problems. Without amnesty, they are still up for convictions. In addition, it you look at the supposed President's signature, it was done with an auto sign machine, where others are with his, (possible), actual signature. Prepare the gallows!
Hunter's pardon.
Every individual pardon on the 19th
Biden did not personally sign these pardons, therefore they have no force or effect.
Amnesty vs. pardon
- Amnesty is given to people who have not yet been convicted of a crime, while a pardon is given to people who have already been convicted.
"Grant to the said A. H. Garland a FULL PARDON AND AMNESTY for all offences by him committed, arising from participation, direct or implied, in the said Rebellion, conditioned as follows: this pardon to begin and take effect from the day on which the said A. H. Garland shall take the oath prescribed in the proclamation of the President, dated May 29th, 1865, and to be void and of no effect if the said A. H. Garland shall hereafter at any time acquire any property whatever in slaves, or make use of slave labor, and that he first pay all costs which may have accrued in any proceedings hitherto instituted against his person or property. And upon the further condition that the said A. H. Garland shall notify the Secretary of State in writing that he has received and accepted the foregoing pardon."
Look at how other pardons he issued were written here:
Pardons Granted by President Joseph Biden (2021-Present)
Here is one of Biden's pardons. A huge difference from the blanket pardons he's issued. It specifically spells out what laws were violated and conditions set forth:
LOTFOLAH KAVEH AFRASIABI
A FULL PARDON FOR THOSE OFFENSES charged in an indictment (Docket No. 1:2 l-cr-00046 (ERK) (RER)) filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on January 25, 2021, for violations of (Count One): Sections 371 and 3551 et seq, Title 18, United States Code; (Count Two): Sections 2 and 3551 et seq, Title 18, and Sections 612 and 618(a)(l), Title 22, United States Code; and (Forfeiture Count): Sections 981(a)(l)(C), Title 18, Section 853(p), Title 21, and Section 2461 ( c ), Title 28, United States Code.
I CONDITION THE PARDON UPON THE FOLLOWING TERMS:
(1) the said KAVEH LOTFOLAH AFRASIABI, AKA LOTFOLAH KAvAH AFRASIABI, shall not commit any additional crime against the United States or in violation of the laws of the United States subsequent to the acceptance of this Pardon;
(2) the said KAVEH LOTFOLAH AFRASIABI, AKA LOTFOLAH KAVAH AFRASIABI, shall waive and release any all claims, demands, rights, and causes of action ofwhatsoever kind and nature against the United States of America, its agents, servants, and employees;
(3) the said KAVEH LOTFOLAH AFRASIABI, AKA LO"J'FOLAH KA v AH AFRASIABI, shall waive any and all claims to funds already seized as part ofthe prosecution of.offenses subject to this Pardon; and
(4) the said KAVEH LOTFOLAH AFRASIABI, AKA LOTFOLAH KAVAH AFRASIABI, shall not accept or otherwise receive any financial benefit directly or indirectly, in any marmer or amount, from any book, movie, or other publication or production, in any form or media, about his situation; IF AT ANY TIME the said KAVEH LOTFOLAH AFRASIABI, AKA LOTFOLAH KAVAH AFRASIABI, violates one or more ofthe aforementioned terms, as determined by me in my complete discretion ( or by a future President in his or her complete discretion), this Pardon may be voided in its entirety"
As to pardon versus amnesty it was stated in Knote v, United States (1877) -"Some distinction has been made, or attempted to be made, between pardon and amnesty. It. is sometimes said that the latter operates as an extinction of the offense of which it is the object, causing it to be forgotten, so far as the public interests are concerned, whilst the former only operates to remove the penalties of the offense. This distinction is not, however, recognized in our law. The Constitution does not use the word "amnesty;" and except that the term is generally employed where pardon is extended to whole classes or communities, instead of individuals, the distinction between them is one rather of philological interest than of legal importance. At all events, nothing can be gained in the consideration of the question before us by showing that there is any difference in their operation."
Given that SCOTUS has declared the power as being "unlimited" (except with regard to impeachment) and that it is not subject to legislative or judicial review, I suspect that, while seemingly wrong, it would be deemed as allowed for the Executive to do so.
I’ve got to agree with this, to change unlimited to limited would be an ex post facto change.
Well, not sure about that point of view as ex post facto refers to laws being changed/added after the act/crime. To change the pardon power by adding additional limits would require amendment to the Constitution.