Our dear Orange Dude has pardon everyone who has dirt on his worthless ass…..and there are a few things that I want to pass on….
The people pardoned are criminals.
If they accept the pardon then they are admitting that they are truly criminals and guilty of the charges levelled on them.
But let’s learn about pardons for those unsure what they are and do….
The U.S. Constitution, in Article II, Section 2, grants the president the power of executive clemency. Executive clemency includes the power to pardon, in which the president overturns a federal conviction and restores “an individual to the state of innocence that existed before the conviction.” Executive clemency also includes the power of commutation, which allows a president to shorten or reduce a federal prison sentence.
Other powers of executive clemency include postponing a sentence or punishment (a reprieve) and remitting fines.
The Constitution imposes two major limits on the power of executive clemency. The first is that clemency is limited to federal offenses. The president cannot pardon individuals for civil or state offenses. The second is that the president may not use this power to intervene in impeachment proceedings.
A special office in the Department of Justice is dedicated to assisting the president in matters related to executive clemency. It is called the Office of the Pardon Attorney. Requests for pardons, commutations, and remissions begin with the Office of the Pardon Attorney.
Next the reasons for presidential pardons according to scholar P.S. Ruckman…..
First category of explanations are ‘legal’ or ‘technical’ in nature. Generally such explanations relate to (1) the potential, probable or certain innocence of the petitioner (2) mitigating factors or (3) concern for proportionate punishment. [W.H.] Humbert’s  study, for example, found the following factors cited in clemency statements: (1) irregularities at trial, insufficient evidence, conflicting testimony, mistaken identity, grave doubt as to the justice of convictions, disclosure of new evidence, confessions of true offenders (2) absence of premeditation, the heat of passion or extreme provocation, insanity, intoxication (3) technical guilt, pettiness of the crime, excessive punishment, sufficient punishment, and a desire to equalize punishment for all participants in the crime.
A second category of formal, public clemency explanations concerns humanitarian compassion or mercy. Clemency rationales in this category are criticized more frequently, but the appeals to sympathy and emotion in this category of explanations may serve as a powerful shield to the executive. Many pardons, for example, have been issued to federal prisoners near death (Adler 1989; Humbert 1941). […] In some instances, pardons have been issued to those whose health threatened that of other inmates (Humbert 1941). A well-argued statement emphasizing the extreme age, ignorance, or questionable degree of sanity in the recipient of clemency may sway sympathy as well as any ‘death bed’ scenario.
A third and final category of formal, public clemency explanations concerns judgments on reform, or rehabilitation. Explanations in this category may well provide the greatest potential for controversy. As Moore (1993) notes, presidents run certain risks when they attempt to assess the reality and degree of a prisoner’s `transformation.’ […] In the past, presidents have been swayed by the religious conversion of prisoners, charity work (Clark 1984), and promises “never to violate the law again” (Humbert 1941, 124).
Next question is why do we have this situation….it begins with the Framers…..
The concept of governmental relief from the punishment that would otherwise apply to a criminal act has deep historical roots, with some scholars tracing it as far back as ancient Greece and Rome. An English form of pardon power vested in the king, the ‘prerogative of mercy,’ first appeared during the reign of King Ine of Wessex (688-725 A.D.). Over time, perceived abuses ‘such as royal sales of pardons or use of pardons as bribery to join the military’ prompted Parliament to impose limitations on the pardon power. The king’s power to pardon nevertheless endured through the American colonial period and applied in the colonies themselves through delegation to colonial authorities.
Following the American Revolution, the English legal tradition of a pardon power held by the executive directly influenced the pardon provision included in the U.S. Constitution. At the Constitutional Convention, the two major plans offered—the Virginia and New Jersey plans—did not address pardons. However, in a ‘sketch’ of suggested amendments to the Virginia plan, Alexander Hamilton included a pardon power vested in an ‘Executive authority of the United States’ that extended to ‘all offences except Treason,’ with a pardon for treason requiring Senate approval. It appears that the rationale for the treason limitation was, at least in part, that the head of the executive branch should not be able to absolve himself and possible conspirators of a crime threatening ‘the immediate being of the society.’ Hamilton’s proposal was included in a subsequent draft of the Constitution, though the requirement of Senate approval for a pardon of treason was replaced with an exception for impeachment, apparently with the thought that exempting impeachment was sufficient to protect against abuse.
Now you know the why and how…..
I Read, I Write, You Know
“lego ergo scribo”