The Power of the Presidential Pardon

#constitution #history #americanhistory #politics

The president’s ability to forgive crimes, known as the pardon power, has origins in the English “prerogative of mercy.” During the drafting of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton proposed giving this power to the presidency, so that pardons could be granted quickly whenever the courts erred. After some debate, the other delegates to the Constitutional Convention agreed, and they empowered the presidency with the power to unilaterally issue pardons. However, presidents' use of the pardon power has repeatedly come under scrutiny throughout American history.

Timestamps:
0:00 Intro
0:33 Background
1:18 The First Pardons
2:28 United States v. Wilson
3:12 Ex Parte Wells
3:58 Reconstruction
4:47 Ex Parte Garland
5:37 Burdick v. United States
6:39 Ex Parte Grossman
7:42 Pardon of Richard Nixon
8:36 George H.W. Bush
9:39 Bill Clinton
10:37 Donald Trump
11:15 Self-Pardons
11:52 Summary
12:31 Conclusion

Background
The First Pardons
United States v. Wilson
Ex Parte Wells
Reconstruction
Ex Parte Garland
Burdick v. United States
Ex Parte Grossman
Pardon of Richard Nixon
George H.W. Bush
Bill Clinton
Donald Trump
Self Pardon
Summary
Conclusion

[azophi]

“No one is above the law… unless they are pardoned by the president”

[EagleGamer_]

This is a topic I never really hear about. Thanks for informing me on the history of Presidential Pardons

[toddlund]

Excellent video ... but I think a more realistic and interesting question then "can the President pardon himself?" is "can an Acting President pardon a President?"

[DylanSargesson]

Re: self-pardons. The English precedents would not support self-pardons because constitutionally the Monarch is incapable of being charged with/found guilty of a crime. Technically speaking in a trial under English law the Crown is the judge and the prosecution, which is obviously different to the American system.

English Criminal Cases are "R. Vs. X" ("R." here meaning "Rex"/"Regina", Latin for King/Queen), whereas American cases as "The People Vs. X"

[kokofudgebar]

Bro this guy needs the algorithm to hit. Highkey underrated channel

[ba]

That's an exceptionally great treatment of the topic, this dude deserves way more subscribers than he already has. Keep up the good work

[aaronlulay]

Another great video. Educational, concise and entertaining. Thanks!

[cashewking]

Love these videos! Consistently very high quality- honestly baffles me how you don’t have more subscribers. Keep it up!

[KiwiDaCat-pb]

I made my fictional character, 49th President Carmen Grosso pardoned the heroes after they were framed by the villain.

[SamerMasterson]

Great video, I hope this channel blows up.

[goldenfiberwheat]

I didn’t know bill pardoned a bunch of people at the end of his term. Reminds me of what Jefferson did. He appointed a bunch of judges on his last day in office

[swagmundfreud]

I truly believe that former presidents, their cabinets, and congressmen should not be allowed to be pardoned under any circumstances.

[Ps-cvfo]

Having to have the DOJ consent to a pardon would be counterproductive. The pardon was designed to keep the DOJ in check.

[AndyHoward]

3:43 ex parte

done with respect to or in the interests of one side only or of an interested outside party

Dictum is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase " obiter dictum." As a legal term, a dictum is any statement or opinion made by a judge that is not required as part of the legal reasoning to make a judgment in a case.

[xdpotatoman]

I just discovered your channel probably thanks to the sort of same style as hoser bluejay and love it hope you grow and keep making amazing content

[t-mag]

Based exclusively on this video alone it really seems to me like there would be less controversy over the Presidential Pardon if the 1915 "Burdick v. United States Case" made the ruling of "accepting a pardon = implicit guilt" legally binding. I do think if that portion of the Supreme Court's ruling was binding, it would've made Nixon's pardoning ever so slightly less controversal, since he would've admitted to being guilty of his involvement in Watergate, if only implicitly. Of course Nixon would still walk away a free man, which would still piss people off, but hey, you win some you lose some.

It might even be possible that had "accepting a pardon = admitting one's implicit guilt" been a part of the Presidential Pardon's functions, it could actually have resulted in _less_ not _more_ lenient usage (and abuse) of the Pardon.

I believe this because if a person is *not guilty* and yet for whatever reason accepts a Pardon, anyone who thinks you're guilty of something, can make that claim solely because you accepted a Pardon, and that person could not make such an allegation go away unless they retroactively "unaccepted" the Pardon, (which who knows maybe that'd be a whole other Supreme Court issue). However, if a person *is* guilty, they might be walking free, but they cannot enjoy their freedom, because even if everyone else only thinks you _might_ be guilty, to an actually guilty person, that is just as bad as "failing to get away with it", and in this case were they to "unaccept" the Pardon, they'd open themselves up to being prosecuted for the crimes, implicit or not, that the Pardon protected them from.

[spanishroyalty]

You failed to mention civil war pardons for Union troops as well

[GarchompDude]

Now we need someone to give a couple of those to Edward Snowden, Ross Ulbricht & Jullian Assange

[zackchilds]

Amazing video - one thing to add though. Trump was using this pardon power near the end of his first term, but he was still actively seeking re-election.

[TheAbosloh]

I love this channel. I hope you gain a lot of subscribers. you truly deserve it.❤❤