I do not see why that would matter at all. The US Constitution is very clear on the ability of the President to pardon:
"Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
If the power had any other limit, it would have been out into the language. Even a "wise Latina" and a black who can't define the word "woman" justice would have trouble convoluting this crystal clear language.
And I don't disagree with you. I mean, I know what it says. I'm just saying it's never been challenged. So it may appear as though the power is unlimited, but that can be challenged. And the court would have to rule on that so, and that's their job is to interpret the Constitution and make rulings.
You can disagree that is fine. I know what the language says and it appears cut and dry. That doesn't mean it cannot be challenged, and I am not the only one who says this. Constitutional attorneys have also said this. There is no way to know what the outcome will be because it has never been challenged. That is the point.
The 2nd Amendment says "shall not be infringed" but I can't own a machine gun so just because something appears a certain way doesn't mean it will be that way.
I suggest studying the case law on this (Ex parte Garland) or, ideally, taking a Constitutional law class . The Supreme Court long ago issued a decision on this matter affirming exactly what the Constitution says. You are simply wrong on the law here but believe what you would like. As the old Simon and Garfunkel song says, "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
I do not see why that would matter at all. The US Constitution is very clear on the ability of the President to pardon:
"Section. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
If the power had any other limit, it would have been out into the language. Even a "wise Latina" and a black who can't define the word "woman" justice would have trouble convoluting this crystal clear language.
And I don't disagree with you. I mean, I know what it says. I'm just saying it's never been challenged. So it may appear as though the power is unlimited, but that can be challenged. And the court would have to rule on that so, and that's their job is to interpret the Constitution and make rulings.
I disagree, as written it is unchallengeable, there is nothing to interpret. There is clearly only one exception and no other.
You can disagree that is fine. I know what the language says and it appears cut and dry. That doesn't mean it cannot be challenged, and I am not the only one who says this. Constitutional attorneys have also said this. There is no way to know what the outcome will be because it has never been challenged. That is the point.
The 2nd Amendment says "shall not be infringed" but I can't own a machine gun so just because something appears a certain way doesn't mean it will be that way.
I suggest studying the case law on this (Ex parte Garland) or, ideally, taking a Constitutional law class . The Supreme Court long ago issued a decision on this matter affirming exactly what the Constitution says. You are simply wrong on the law here but believe what you would like. As the old Simon and Garfunkel song says, "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."