I'm only aware of one former president getting pardoned and it was Nixon (R) being pardoned by Ford (R)

A presidential pardon isn't technically binding regardless of who pardons. Like, Bush pardoned himself. So? Law is carried out by the judicial branch, which kind of "allows" pardons, but isn't bound by them. Law is written by the congressional branch, which seldom even acknowledges political pardons. The executive branch is merely involved in enforcement. If an executive of the executive further down the line wants to enforce law against a prior executive, the "executive pardon" holds no weight of law regardless.

Still irks me to this day. Ford's legacy should be forever tarnished for that. And it is in some circles.

It could still be litigated in court. I don't know why it bothers you. The reason it hasn't been litigated is the precedent it sets, calling out the "pardons" for what they are. Chelsea Manning is only safe because of the lack of challenge, not because of the challenge.

You do understand, nobody in the executive branch, President or not, has the right to subdue law. We're talking about tradition, as opposed to legal fact.

The constitution gives the president the power to pardon and gives no explicit restrictions on it. The only case I could think of where that would be questioned is a self-pardon. You could still litigate but since there's already been a pardon it wouldn't have any effect.

However, on the state level I don't believe the president can pardon. Only on federal charges.

I would put it like this: Pardoning Nixon was wrong on a moral, personal or justice level. But it was the right thing to do for the country. Letting Nixon ride into the sunset as a lonely, disempowered and thoroughly disgraced cowboy while the rest of the country moves on was the better option compared to extending the national trauma of Watergate or risk turning Nixon into a martyr for some non-negligible portion of the population.

You don't even know what you're talking about.

The ONLY thing that the constitution gives is the right to pardon against offenses against the united states. Literally, it's treason pardons (such as Chelsea Manning) that the President can pardon. According to the Constitution.

The ideal that anything even involving the United States translates "against the United States" is horse shit. And the reason this hasn't been litigated is that even Chelsea Manning hasn't been re-litigated is because the damage it would cause is greater than the death of a traitor would accomplish.

You live in a different world. I'm not sure where that world is, but it wants to be very controlling, yet doesn't have actual justice as a primary.

Every president pardons a ton of people, are you saying that the vast majority of these are illegitimate? Because the vast majority are not treason cases.

Yes, I am. And this is not "new" or "different". If you understand the "tradition" of the pardoning, then you'd understand why it exists. You're trying to hold something sacrosanct, and then utilize it to tar and feather somebody who utilized it as a bad action. Neither is true.

You're a simpleton. You should research the issues you're putting forward as "they matter" before you claim they're examples of people doing something untoward.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on May 19 2020 09:31pm

I disagree. I think it set a bad precedent for the pardoning power. The country needing to 'move on' is a Ford talking point, imo. Moreso, I think the country needed justice. And it needed to show its people that no one, not even the President, is above the law. We did not show that.