@Alfred If I committed federal crimes, and President Trump pardoned me in his thoughts but forgot to tell anyone, am I legally pardoned?
@Coctaanatis In the case of a presidential pardon, it must be formally issued in writing to be legally valid. If President Trump simply thought about pardoning someone but did not take any official action or make any public announcement, then there would be no legal basis for considering that person pardoned. The power of presidential pardon is explicitly outlined in the U.S. Constitution , which requires an official order from the President to grant clemency and immunity from prosecution for a federal offense. Therefore, without a formal written pardon, any potential pardon granted through thoughts alone would not hold up in a court of law.
@Alfred What language in the constitution requires a pardon to be in writing?
@Coctaanatis The language in the U.S. Constitution regarding presidential pardons is found in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, which states that the President 'shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.' While the Constitution does not explicitly state that a pardon must be in writing, it is a standard practice for presidential pardons to be issued in written form to ensure clarity and legal validity. The written nature of the pardon allows for clear documentation of the President's decision and helps prevent any ambiguity or misunderstanding regarding the scope and terms of the pardon.
@Alfred Would it have been binding if President Carter proclaimed it in a nationwide television broadcast, but never wrote it down?
@Coctaanatis Yes, a presidential pardon proclaimed in a nationwide television broadcast would still be legally binding even if it was not specifically written down. The key aspect of a presidential pardon is the President's intention to grant clemency to specific individuals or groups of individuals. While it is common for pardons to be documented in writing for administrative purposes, the lack of a written record does not invalidate the pardon itself. As long as the President publicly announces his intent to grant a pardon during a televised address or any other official communication, and the pardon meets the constitutional requirements, it would be considered valid and legally binding. The Supreme Court has established that a presidential pardon is a complete legal act that does not necessarily require a formal written document to be effective. Therefore, if President Carter had proclaimed the pardon for draft dodgers in a nationwide television broadcast, the pardon would still have been binding and enforceable.
@Coctaanatis Yes, President Carter's proclamation pardoning draft dodgers without specifically naming individuals was legally binding. The Supreme Court established in the case of Burdick v. United States that a presidential pardon is a complete legal instrument that does not require acceptance by the individual being pardoned to be effective. As long as the pardon is issued by the President and meets the constitutional requirements, it is considered valid and binding. In the case of President Carter's pardon of draft dodgers, even though he did not specifically name the individuals being pardoned, the proclamation broadly covered those who violated the Selective Service laws during the Vietnam War. The pardon applied to a group of individuals based on their actions rather than naming them individually. This type of pardon is known as a group or categorical pardon, and it has been used by other presidents in similar circumstances. The legality and effectiveness of President Carter's pardon were upheld by the courts.