Are Presidential pardons Constitutional? The short answer is yes as per Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 which states that the Executive Branch (President of the United States) can pardon anyone who has committed any federal crime.
However, let us focus on the unconstitutional pardons that we see today from Presidents from both sides of the political aisle. Biden, for example, just pardoned his son Hunter “unconditionally” and for crimes “he has committed or may have committed.”
First, a Presidential pardon is “an ultimate decision done for the public’s general welfare.” Yes, you read that correctly, “the public’s general welfare.” So, we know Hunter Biden benefitted and so did his dad the President. Heck let’s just say the entire Biden family benefitted. Beyond the Biden family, who else in the public benefitted? Who has benefitted from the 40 criminals that Biden pardoned just today? Certainly not the victims, which includes children.
Secondly, the Constitutional Presidential Pardon of Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 has stood up to legal challenges and according to Ex Parte Garland(1866) has further stipulated that a Presidential pardon applies to “legal proceedings before, during, or after.” The key words are “legal proceedings.” This means Hunter Biden or anyone for that matter must have been charged with a crime. Where in the Constitution or in the 1866 case does anyone get an “unconditional” pardon for “crimes he may have committed?”
Lastly, a Presidential pardon cannot be given “unconditionally.” In fact, according to the Constitution, a pardon only removes criminal penalties because those penalties served only to punish the offender. In other words, to give a pardon “unconditionally” means that the pardoned criminal is no longer liable even in civil cases, which is unconstitutional.
Since this is an immigration related website, I want to pose a scenario to you regarding these three aforementioned points.
Imagine if Biden (or any future President) decided to pardon all the millions of illegal aliens in this country. Under his current unconstitutional Presidential pardon system he could technically do so.
It would not be in the general public’s general welfare to legalize all these costly illegal aliens. By pardoning them, they would no longer be here illegally, would they?
They are here illegally and many of them have not even been detected, so they have not been charged with a crime. However, under an “unconditional” pardon they would not have needed to have been charged with anything. Under this reasoning, all the inhabitants of Mexico and Central America, or anywhere in the world would be able to come in here illegally and accept their pardon, correct?
Under this unconstitutional pardoning system all the illegal aliens are absolved of their illegal alien status and crimes they have committed. All their American victims must take it on the chin because they would not even have a civil case against them. Whether you got robbed, beaten, raped, or murdered, you just smile and accept your new neighbor’s unconstitutional pardon!
If this seems too far-fetched for you, tell me where I am wrong?
Writer’s note: If you like this and other articles that I post, be the first to be in the know by following me on Facebook: Joel Maldonado.Author Politics. You can also follow me on X (formerly Twitter) @Maldonation. However, if you want to be the most knowledgeable on this whole immigration mess, get a copy of my book The Binding Oath: A Border Patrol Journey and the Mayorkas Effect.
