To answer my own question, obviously not, as Nixon wasn’t convicted of anything when he was pardoned.
So at least circa 1974, this could be done. I wonder if I can get a pardon for my future crimes. That would be better than a liscence to kill.
I’m beginning to suspect that some posters here do not understand that a President may pardon “offenses against the United States” - that is, federal crimes. A president may not pardon state crimes.
That was what prompted my question – so far as I’m aware, there is no reason to believe that Jenna or Barbara Bush have any criminal liability for federal crimes.
No. A pardon may not precede the offense. Otherwise, the President would have th epower to dispense completely with federal laws.
A pardon may precede indictment. See Ex parte Garland , 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 333, 380 (1867).
Good point, looks like my Bill Frist & Co. pardon prediction is out the window as I’m pretty sure that was a Texas law they were breaking.
You’re assuming I’m a complete nutjob for betting my hard-earned moolah that Junior is gonna have a go at repealing a certain constitutional ammendment. 
And pardon Manson? (jest acknowledged) Is that guy even dangerous anymore?
- Did any of the “Swifties” testify under oath?
- Was it in a state or federal proceeding?
They did give what they now say was false information in official Navy reports. I’d say falsification of Naval documents would qualify as a federal crime. That in addition to state crimes of slander and libel.
Would you want him to move in next door if he ever is pardoned?
Just in case my point was missed… Ken Lay draws about as much sympathy from the average American as Manson does. I can’t see any way that Bush would pardon such a high profile villain.
I understand your irritation, Bricker. But it’s hyperbole. Ignore it.
What makes you think Bush would just then start to care what the public thinks? Kenny Boy is an old friend. The Bushes take care of their friends. Kenny Boy walks.
But that will be masked by the blanket pardons for anyone involved in the Plame affair or the Halliburton contract affair, even if the wording is Gerald Ford’s “any and all crimes he may have committed between these dates.”
I thought Bush was going to throw out the elections and declair himself King or something. Why would he NEED to pardon anyone on his way out?? 
-XT
If you’re talking about the admission that they filed false reports during the Vietnam War, the statute of limitations has undoubtedly long-since expired on any crime. A pardon would be possible, but legally meaningless.
Generally, there is no state “crime” of slander or libel. Those are torts, civil wrongs, and may not be pardoned.
This is not settled. Indeed, there are many constitutional scholars who believe that Ford’s pardon of Nixon was improper because not only had Nixon not been convicted of anything, he hadn’t even been indicted for anything. Traditionally, pardons are for specific acts that the person has been accused (or convicted) of. As far as that goes, the presidential pardon is unlimited. The president could, in theory, pardon your traffic citations if he so chose.
If he loses this time, he is eligible to run in 2008.
Only your traffic citations committed on federal land, and cited by federal authority, such as the Park Service or military police.
As I just explained above.
This was challenged in federal court which upheld the pardon. A summary of the case from U of Pitt law school:
:: mumbling ::
Couldn’t be any more of a hole than my current neighbor…
:: mumbling ::
If he moved next to your current neighbor you might get rid of that neighbor ! :eek:
Do you know something we don’t know?
Psst. The inauguration will be in Jan '09.