Yes, an excess of presidential power establishes dangerous precedents

Article II Section 2 of the Constitution states that: “The President … shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” While seemingly broad, this power does come with some limitations. In addition to excluding impeachment cases, the president can only pardon federal offenses, and these apply solely to criminal offenses. But, other than this, the president essentially has free reign, and the little precedent that exists to check this power unfortunately allows presidents to abuse it in the most un-American way. It allows citizens to essentially ignore the law if the President favors you enough. 

Although the power of pardons was discussed during the Constitutional Convention, no formal limits were actually entered into the Constitution. George Mason believed that the president’s power should also be restricted when treason was charged, which could be seen as anticipatory to recent developments regarding pardons issued by Presidents Biden and Trump. “The President of the United States has the unrestricted power of granting pardons for treason; which may sometimes be exercised to screen from punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the crime and thereby prevent the discovery of his own guilt,” Mason argued. 

The power of presidential pardons is a dangerous loophole in American democracy. While intended as a tool for mercy, it’s become a weapon for political favoritism, corruption, and undermining the rule of law. 

Perhaps the most infamous example was Gerald Ford’s preemptive pardon of Richard Nixon. Nixon, who was facing impeachment for the Watergate scandal, never saw the inside of a courtroom thanks to a preemptive pardon from his successor, Gerald Ford. This pardon set a dangerous precedent: even presidents can commit crimes and walk away scot-free. 

One could argue that it supported an admission of guilt on Nixon’s part, referring to the 1915 Supreme Court ruling in Burdick v. United States, where accepting such a pardon demonstrated an “an admission of guilt.” Ultimately, this decision implied that by accepting the pardon, Nixon accepted his guilt in the Watergate scandal. However, admitting one’s guilt and facing the actual consequences are two entirely separate arenas.

More recently, former President Biden’s pardon also raised warning flags. In 2024, Biden pardoned his son, Hunter Biden, sparing him from possible imprisonment on a gun and many tax charges. President Biden not only pardoned him for these charges, but also for crimes dating to 2014 – more than 10 years ago. But if Hunter Biden was given leniency simply due to his familial background, that certainly raises doubts about the supposed meritocracy we live in. 

Finally, the most recent examples are President Trump’s pardons of the rioters during the January 6th insurrection on the Capitol Building in protest of the 2020 Presidential Election. Over 1,500 individuals were granted clemency for their actions that day, such as assault of police officers, and destruction of government property. Yet, many of these rioters had previous criminal records including rape, sexual assault, and drug trafficking, to name a few. 

Even some of Trump’s fellow Republicans disagree. Senator Thom Tillis from North Carolina, who in the past has worked to restrict abortion rights and decrease Medicaid opportunities, said “You make this place less safe if you send the signal that police officers could potentially be assaulted and there is no consequence,” in an interview with Reuters. 

The bottom line? If democracy is supposed to hold everyone accountable, it is most definitely time to limit the president’s ability to hand out “get-out-of-jail-free” cards. Without reform, the presidential pardon power will continue to be used by both parties as a tool for corruption, not justice.

No, these powers help combat the flawed aspects of the American justice system

The right to presidential pardons comes from Article ll, Section 2 of the constitution which states the president can provide “reprieves and pardons” for individuals convicted of federal crimes. They have become a hot topic in the news due to the actions of our former and present president and, therefore, been painted in a highly negative light due to arguments about unchecked powers. However, presidential pardons are constitutional and have been curated to be influenced by democracy to keep the executive branch under control while being used to save countless individuals wrongly convicted and incarcerated.

In the history of arrests in our country, there have been numerous cases where it has been observed that the time that criminal offenders face doesn’t match the crime. Mass murder and terroristic acts have matched up against drug crimes, which no matter the extent of the crime aren’t comparable regarding the impact on the American people and the safety of the country. The standard of measurement for the severity of crimes committed in the U.S. is deeply flawed and expresses an unbalanced system. In these cases, clemency in the form of presidential pardons is required, and has the ability to utilize their immense strength for good.

Take the example of Darell Frazier. He had been convicted of drug conspiracy, which he pled guilty to, and before President Trump pardoned him, Frazier had already served 30 years in federal prison. He had an excellent prison record, even formulating a non-profit called the Joe Johnson Tennis Foundation during his time. Therefore, he was a prime choice to be pardoned, and after immense efforts contacting celebrities and activist organizations, he was able to appeal to the president through Ivanka Trump, gaining his long-awaited freedom.

Though there was valid outrage for our past presidents issuing pardons to political allies and friends, in cases such as the one of Darell Frazier where non-violent crimes received harsh and lengthy sentences, presidential pardons aren’t just required but desperately needed. They support the protection of Americans and express hope that justice will be provided to people who have experienced unjust fates. 

In addition to harsh sentences, another flaw in our current justice system is wrong convictions. People who have done nothing wrong and are completely innocent have to face the brutal nature of the judicial system. According to the Equal Justice Initiative , there have been more than 3175 cases of exonerations since 1989 and over 27,200 years that innocent individuals have spent in prison. This result is often due to lying witnesses, false forensic evidence and lab-testing errors, simple mistakes and factors that forever ruin lives, expressing the unreliability and frequent failure of proper justice in America. 

There are also issues of inadequate representation by defense lawyers, due to lack of money, resources or skill, who fail to make proper cases for their clients. Therefore, pardons granted by the executive branch provide relief for people placed in these unfortunate circumstances where they have no control or true ability to protect themselves. The lives and years lost due to the often defective choices by the judicial system fully express the true importance of the existence of this power and the reason why our founding fathers established it in the first place.

If you would like to voice your opinion on an issue you feel is relevant to our community, please do so here. Anyone is able and welcome to submit a Letter to the Editor, regardless of journalistic experience or writing skills. Submissions may be published either online or in a print issue.