Okay, the SO and I are having a difference of opinion and I’m looking to the Teeming Millions to settle the question for us.
Let us say, hypothetically, that during the last week of his presidency Dubya issues a blanket pardon/prosecutorial immunity to every member of his cabinet for any and all offenses committed during his term in office. Then, a month after the new president takes office conclusive evidence is discovered that proves Dick Cheney has raped and murdered fifty young girls and has buried them in his backyard. The SO says the retroactive immunity granted by Dubya covers these murders, and I say that can’t possibly be right.
It is an interesting question as to whether or not Cheney murdering someone in his official residence, which is U.S. Federal Government property and is located within Washington, D.C. (which isn’t a state) would be a crime in which the Federal government would have original jurisdiction (and would thus be a crime that the President could give blanket amnesty for.)
This is something someone a lot more informed than me would have to answer. My gut feeling is that a murder in the District would fall under the jurisdiction of the local D.C. courts first, not a U.S. District court, and thus maybe the Presidential pardon wouldn’t have effect.
I do know for certain that if Bush issued a blanket amnesty and Cheney was found to have murdered someone in Texas and Wyoming, the Presidential pardon power would be no protection for Cheney, a Presidential pardon can’t pardon a Texas state crime.
However, it’s also worth noting that you mentioned a blanket amnesty for the cabinet, Vice President Cheney sits in on cabinet meetings as Vice Presidents have for several decades–but he is not a member of the cabinet.
My bad re “cabinet,” I meant in general his cronies up to and including Cheney–mostly because the guy looks like somebody who might have something buried in his backyard that’s nasty…
Would that sort of immunity deal exempt Halliburton execs from profiteering charges? What about war crimes–does a prez pardon extend to any sort of international charges?
Has the idea of a “blanket pardon” ever been tested in a court? I seem to recall there was some question about whether such a thing was even legal back when Ford gave one to Nixon. To me, saying that someone can’t be convicted for any past crime seems a stretch of the definition of the word “pardon”.
Yeah, but it seems that this administration really believes in the concept–look at the whole FISA mess. I’d also have to wonder how much weight such a pardon/immunity would have with the pardoner no longer in office–I mean, really, what responsibility would the successor president have in upholding an immunity if information came to light that revealed something truly unsavory.
What does a successor president have to do with the issue? They have no powers or say over previously granted pardons.
If a pardon were truly illegal in some way, I suppose the courts could weigh in, but first you have to find a way that a presidential pardon would be illegal. Your saying it can’t be right wouldn’t hold much sway with a court. The whole point of a pardon is that it stas in effect permanently. If the next president could reverse a pardon, they wouldn’t be worth anything.
On a minor side note, a co-worker of mine got into a bit of trouble in a national park about 15 years ago, public intoxication and vandalism. He was tried and convicted in a federal court, served his sentence and paid all restitution. Along with this was the loss of his right to own firearms. He decided a year ago to see if he could get the crimes expunged so he could go hunting in the fall. He found out his only recourse was to ask for a Presidential pardon. Apparently Bush has issued very few pardons during his time in office and like many others, my co-worker’s request was denied.
Could Bush issue a blanket pardon of himself that would stick for any and all Federal offenses the ex-President might have committed before he left office?
This idea might not be entirely laughable if you consider the matter of torture which Bush and Co. have reportedly approved.
Yes, the pardon power is one Presidential power that has been interpreted extremely broadly. Historically Presidents have used this power to give “blanket amnesties.” For example President Jimmy Carter basically said, “Any person who dodged the draft to avoid serving in the Vietnam war is given amnesty for their actions.” In effect Carter pardoned many thousands of persons simultaneously, if a U.S. Attorney tried to prosecute one of these people the case would almost certainly be thrown out by a judge because of the fact that the individual was covered by the blanket amnesty given by President Carter.
After the American Civil War, President Andrew Johnson issued a sweeping pardon which applied to hundreds of thousands of former Confederates. This was binding, and nothing could undo these pardons.
I’m not aware of any case in which a President has said, “this person is pardoned of any past Federal crimes they have committed” but President Ford’s pardon of Nixon basically said, “Richard Nixon is pardoned for any crimes he committed while President.” Meaning no matter what sort of crime may have been discovered, Nixon could not have been prosecuted. Again, with the exception that any violations of state laws could still be prosecuted, Presidential pardons do not apply to state crimes.
What aspect of the Constitution or other law defines Presidential pardons as only applying to Federal crimes? (That’s not a challenge; I’m ignorant and genuinely curious.)
Now that you mention it . . . does the pardoning power reach crimes prosecuted in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, or (in olden times) the federal territories? They aren’t federal crimes, but the court systems are agents of federal sovereignty.
If not, are those offenses beyond the pardon power altogether? Can the governor of Puerto Rico issue pardons?
Right church; wrong pew. There isn’t really a concept like that in criminal law. The federal government and the states have concurrent jurisdiction over criminal offenses. More important, that’s not the constitutional test. As Bricker notes, the President can only pardon for “offenses against the United States.” Some cases have held that violations of DC law are offenses against the United States. http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/284/284.F2d.804.8194.html If that line of cases is followed, then a presidential pardon that is sufficiently broad would indeed included violations of the local criminal law in DC.
The DC Superior Court and the DC Court of Appeals are both federal courts (albeit Article One, not Article Three) and the DC penal code is an act of Congress. Also the United State’s Attorney for DC prosecutes violations of the local law as well as federal law. A presidential pardon does cover local crimes in DC. During WWI President Wilson pardon several suffragettes who were arrested for “obstructing traffic”.
