[hackingonempty]

> A reasonable opposition party would declare the pardons invalid. Is that a valid interpretation of pardon power, does that undermine the legitimacy of our laws?

No, in the USA the pardon power belongs to the President. Only a constitutional amendment could invalidate pardons.

[ryandrake]

As we are finding out in real time, the President has the power to try to do a million things, legal or illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional, and then whichever ones don't get pushback defacto become actual powers. Throw something at the wall, if it sticks, then it's a Presidential Power. If it doesn't, there's no consequences. Just shrug and throw something else at the wall.

[hackingonempty]

The President's pardon power is enumerated in the Constitution and has been litigated extensively.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C1-3...

[ryandrake]

Which ultimately doesn't matter. If the president tries to do something, and no court actually stops him, then it doesn't matter whether or not it's in the Constitution, whether or not it's written down in law, or whether or not it has been litigated in the past. He tried to do it, nobody stopped him, therefore he can do it.

We are finding out in real time that the president can actually do a lot of things, simply because nobody is stopping him.

[usefulcat]

If you want to prosecute someone who has previously been pardoned, then you'll have to figure out how to get the courts (that is, the people who would be doing the actual prosecuting) to ignore some of the highest rules by which they operate.

I'm not saying that that could never happen, but a) it sure sounds like an uphill battle and b) it's not the same thing as the president (one person) doing whatever they feel like regardless of the law.

[iamnothere]

I don’t think these blanket pardons are a good thing at all, but an amendment is needed to fix it.

We have somehow made it a habit to ignore the inconvenient parts of the constitution when they create problems, rather than going through the enumerated process to amend them. Yes, it’s hard to amend the constitution, but that’s the point!

[kelnos]

Fair, but I don't think it's likely that SCOTUS would invalidate any of Trump's presidential pardons, assuming a future president decided to prosecute someone he pardoned. I doubt even the liberal members of SCOTUS would want to touch that.

[idle_zealot]

Only a constitutional amendment could allow the executive to declare war, or regulate trade, or control funds, or countless other unenumerated or explicitly disallowed powers. But if those rules are broken, we should still follow the rule that says the executive is immune from punishment and can declare anyone else forgiven? If that's the case there's actually only one rule: the executive is king. You can wipe your ass with the rest of the constitution.

[JumpCrisscross]

There would still be a valuable public record produced by the investigation and court proceedings. Going after pardoned criminals is absolutely something the next administration should do. (We have zero precedent for preëmptive and blanket pardons in our courts, for example.)

[hackingonempty]

Ex Parte Garland was decided in 1866

“The power of pardon conferred by the Constitution upon the President is unlimited except in cases of impeachment. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.”

Nobody is going to waste their time investigating crimes that can't be prosecuted.

[idle_zealot]

You can't pardon violations of State law though. There may be plenty of offenses to go after. Vindictiveness is required at this point.