I just dont think that it is how the law is written to work, if I can forgive you for crimes not yet noted, then why not the other way around and charge you for crimes not actually done (read: thought crime).
Yeah, this is exactly the point here everyone. The pardons work because nobody has asked anyone if these blanket pardons are indeed legit.
So we can all sit here and try to mince the logic of such, but the real answer is that it exists in a superposition of legal and not legal until the various courts rule upon it.
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.
Which is because they didnt wanna smear the office of the president, and they control the DOJ. We should just move that to a 6 year cycle election. But even then its not like election are by an informed people to start so I guess this is just fucking another thing that we can be like we are fucked on.
in what world do they issue pardons (To release (a person) from punishment or disfavor for wrongdoing or a fault: synonym: forgive. from dictionary.com) to people that were never even considered to have been at fault or done no wrong??
A pardon is a governmental decision to absolve an individual for a criminal conviction, often times freeing him from all or part of the punishment imposed at sentencing. Pardons are typically granted by the President, or by individual state governors, usually to absolve individuals, but may be granted, in certain circumstances, for groups of people. Federal pardons are granted by the President of the United States, and each state’s law dictates with whom the power to grant state pardons lies. To explore this concept, consider the following pardon definition.
Seems like it does indeed imply there is a crime and punishment .
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.
that by itself says before they legal proceedings, stating that they should/could be charged with wrong doing. Not just for being good people, they are believed to be charged soon. If its a frivolous lawsuit it should be allowed to play out no need for a pardon in something that NO ONE THINKS YOU DID ANY WRONG. By granting the pardon you are saying that something is at least legally questionable and they could be charged. Again this all means that something that was illegal was going on and people can talk about that, even editorialize with this information and have a better root to believably with that the person was pardoned, so if there is no crime then they shouldnt have power to pardon anyone.
I just dont think that it is how the law is written to work, if I can forgive you for crimes not yet noted, then why not the other way around and charge you for crimes not actually done (read: thought crime).
It’s never actually been constitutionally challenged.
Yeah, this is exactly the point here everyone. The pardons work because nobody has asked anyone if these blanket pardons are indeed legit.
So we can all sit here and try to mince the logic of such, but the real answer is that it exists in a superposition of legal and not legal until the various courts rule upon it.
The SCOTUS has already answered your question:
Which is because they didnt wanna smear the office of the president, and they control the DOJ. We should just move that to a 6 year cycle election. But even then its not like election are by an informed people to start so I guess this is just fucking another thing that we can be like we are fucked on.
You are pardoned for an activity, not a particular charge.
If it were the other way around, then prosecutors would simply refile the case with different charges.
But the pardon implys the activity was against the law at the time, and they were doing so knowingly.
No, pardons do not imply guilt.
Pardons can be issued when someone is believed to be innocent of any wrongdoing.
in what world do they issue pardons (To release (a person) from punishment or disfavor for wrongdoing or a fault: synonym: forgive. from dictionary.com) to people that were never even considered to have been at fault or done no wrong??
The dictionary definition is not the legal definition.
A pardon can be issued to anyone, and it prevents any government punishment for the activities mentioned in the pardon.
It does not matter who, if anyone, considers them “at fault”.
https://legaldictionary.net/pardon/
A pardon is a governmental decision to absolve an individual for a criminal conviction, often times freeing him from all or part of the punishment imposed at sentencing. Pardons are typically granted by the President, or by individual state governors, usually to absolve individuals, but may be granted, in certain circumstances, for groups of people. Federal pardons are granted by the President of the United States, and each state’s law dictates with whom the power to grant state pardons lies. To explore this concept, consider the following pardon definition.
Seems like it does indeed imply there is a crime and punishment .
Not according to the SCOTUS:
that by itself says before they legal proceedings, stating that they should/could be charged with wrong doing. Not just for being good people, they are believed to be charged soon. If its a frivolous lawsuit it should be allowed to play out no need for a pardon in something that NO ONE THINKS YOU DID ANY WRONG. By granting the pardon you are saying that something is at least legally questionable and they could be charged. Again this all means that something that was illegal was going on and people can talk about that, even editorialize with this information and have a better root to believably with that the person was pardoned, so if there is no crime then they shouldnt have power to pardon anyone.
I guess because the outcomes are unaffected.
Either they did the crime, and the pardon is doing what it was designed to do. Or they didn’t and it’s not having any effect.
In this case, I imagine the pardons are “witch-hunt for revenge” immunity, given what’s possibly coming down the pipe.
oh I am 100% sure, but on the other hand the ‘news’ could claim ‘look Fiuci was guilty of making covid to start, they had to pardon him’
That’s true.
But they could also do that without evidence sadly. The really sad part is that people would believe them either way