f Bush does issue pardons as he is walking out the door….. can he state “pardoned” for any crimes or does he have to list specifics?

Can he? Sure he CAN! But is this a matter of settled law? I don’t think so. Some argue that the Presidential pardon power is plenary and can be used to pardon non-discovered crimes, all past crimes, and even to future acts. That would essentially be a power that would allow a President to inoculate his staff from any criminal acts past, present or future…and could be issued from Day #1. I think that any reading of the Federalist Papers or the philosophy of Western non-monarchial law (i.e. law as a recourse to the State and King…equal rights under law) would suggest that the Framers didn’t view Pardons as being unconstrained in this sense.

The one case where Presidential pardons were issued to deal with “all acts undertaken while in office” was the Ford pardon of Nixon. ASFAIK that was never contested in Court by anyone with standing…i.e. where a crime had been enunciated and challenged by a victim. There have been some blanket pardons issued, but these generally have related to circumscribed acts relating to rebellion (Shay’s Rebellion, Civil War) or draft dodging. Other crimes that occurred during these periods that were unrelated to the general pardon probably wouldn’t have been covered. For example, recently there was the prosecution of the former GI that crossed over to North Korea during the Vietnam War era (apparently he was concerned about being transferred to ‘Nam). That wasn’t covered under Carter’s General Pardon.

Someone did try to take the Ford Pardon to Court but my understanding was that it was thrown out for standing and non-specificity rather than on its merits.

My view is that there are some stipulations that should be placed about what defines a pardon (just as there are definitional distinctions between commutations and pardons). For example a pardon could be a grant of mercy for a stipulated and defined past crime(s). The pardon could be something that must be published or announced. The President could be asked to explain his decision. None of this would actually restrict the POWER of the President to pardon, it just compels the President state precisely what the pardon entails and why it is being issued. That is essential to Judicial functioning. After all, what happens if someone given a pardon for all crimes in office is discovered to have murdered someone…an act that even the President denies, after the fact, was intended to be protected.

Congress could also use Presidential justifications to improve legislation (for example in crafting laws that dealt more generally with issues raised by the Presidential pardon). Or the Congress could examine the justifications for evidence that might relate to impeachment. A President could, if he wished give no rationale, but that might be viewed as obscurantism by Congress. Neither precision in stating the precise terms of pardon, nor asking a President to make a justification, reduces the POWER of the President to issue pardons.

Lastly, there is historical precedent that Impeachment can be undertaken even after a President or Executive officeholder leaves office. While the removal from office is not possible, impeachment can remove the emoluments of past office and bar the officeholder from future Federal posts. It could prevent the convicted from “enjoying any position of honor, privilege or profit” under the United States…and thus strip an individual of things as simple as “franking privilege” to the loss of pension or Secret Service protection. It could prevent the individual from serving as a lobbyist or receiving Federal Grants. It could strip them of the Titles (such as “President of the United States”) on fundraising tours or speeches.

Most importantly one could remove their power regarding their control over their past Presidential records…since “Executive Privilege” is definitely a “privilege” under the control of impeachment.

Executive Orders are like the internal administrative rules an agency makes, only they apply to all relavant Exec Branch agencies. They are rules not alws.

“One of the other ways the Administration has tried to control the flow of information is by consistently resorting to the language and politics of fear in order to short-circuit the debate and drive its agenda forward without regard to the evidence or the public interest. As President Eisenhower said, “Any who act as if freedom’s defenses are to be found in suppression and suspicion and fear confess a doctrine that is alien to America.”

Fear drives out reason. Fear suppresses the politics of discourse and opens the door to the politics of destruction. Justice Brandeis once wrote: “Men feared witches and burnt women.”

The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hung as traitors. The very existence of our country was at risk.

Yet, in the teeth of those dangers, they insisted on establishing the Bill of Rights.

Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol? Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of missiles poised to be launched against us and annihilate our country at a moment’s notice? Is America in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the march – when our fathers fought and won two World Wars simultaneously?

It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they. Yet they faithfully protected our freedoms and now it is up to us to do the same.”