The decision by President Joe Biden to pardon his son, Hunter , despite previously suggesting he would not do so , has reopened debate over the use of the presidential pardon. Hunter Biden will be spared potential jail time not simply over his convictions for gun and tax offenses, but any “offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period Jan. 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024.” During his first tenure in the White House, Donald Trump issued a total of 144 pardons . Following Biden’s move to pardon his son, Trump raised the issue of those convicted over involvement in the Jan. 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol, raising expectations that he may use the pardon in their cases – something Trump has repeatedly promised to do . But should the pardon power be solely up to the president’s discretion? Or should there be restrictions on who can be granted a pardon? As a scholar of ethics and political philosophy , I find that much of the public debate around pardons needs to be framed within a more fundamental question: Should there be a presidential pardon power at all in a democracy governed by the rule of law? What, after all, is the purpose of a pardon? From royal roots... Black’s Law Dictionary, the go-to book for legal terms, defines the pardon power as, “an act of grace...which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed.” Although the power to pardon is probably as old as politics, the roots of the presidential pardon in the U.S. can be traced back to English law. The English Parliament legally placed an absolute pardon power in the hands of the monarch in 1535 during the reign of King Henry VIII. In the centuries that followed, however, Parliament imposed some limitations on this power, such as preventing pardons of outrageous crimes and pardons during an impeachment. The Founding Fathers followed the English model in establishing the powers of the executive branch in Article II of the U.S. Constitution . Section 2 of that article specifically grants the president the “power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States” and acknowledges one limitation to this power “in cases of impeachment.” But the anti-democratic roots of the pardon power were a point of contention during the drafting and ratification of the Constitution. In a 1788 debate, Virginia delegate George Mason, for example, said that the president “ ought not to have the power of pardoning , because he may frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself. It may happen, at some future day, that he will establish a monarchy, and destroy the republic.” Mason’s concern clearly identifies this vestige of the absolute powers of the English monarchy as a potential threat to the new democracy. In reply, based on the assumption that the president would exercise this power cautiously, James Madison contended that the restriction on the pardon power in cases of impeachment would be a sufficient safeguard against future presidential abuse. ...to religious reasoning The political concept of pardon is linked with the theological concept of divine mercy or the charity of an all-powerful God. Pardon, as Supreme Court Justice Marshall noted in the 1833 United States v. Wilson ruling, is defined as “ an act of grace .” Just as in the Abrahamic faiths – Islam, Judaism and Christianity – God has the power to give and to take life , kings wield the power to take life through executions and to grant life through the exercise of pardons. Echoing the command of the Lord’s Prayer “to forgive the trespasses of others,” English philosopher Thomas Hobbes ’ book “Leviathan” asserts that the sovereign ought to display grace by pardoning the offenses of those who, repenting those offenses, want pardon. Hobbes’ choice – an image from ‘Leviathan.’ Photo by DeAgostini/Getty Images Yet, this analogy with divine mercy for all individuals collides with the legal principle of treating different cases differently. If all trespasses were forgiven, pardon would be granted to all crimes equally. There would be no need for distinctions between the wrongly and the rightly convicted or the repentant and unrepentant criminal. All would be forgiven equally. Universal pardon thus violates the legal principle that each individual should receive their due . In the eyes of law, it is impossible to pardon everything and everyone. The incognito of pardon What Hobbes recognized, if imperfectly, is that the power of pardon is just as essential to political life as to our personal lives. It helps to overcome the antagonisms of the past and opens a path to peace and reconciliation with others. The act of forgiving, as political theorist Hannah Arendt puts it, allows us “ to begin again ” and to create a new future together. But how can we reconcile this need for pardon with the impossibility to forgive everything? One answer can be found in the work of French philosopher Paul Ricoeur . Ricoeur talks about the “ incognito of forgiveness ” – “forgiveness” literally translates to “pardon” in French. Acknowledging the difficulty of turning pardon into a universal legal rule or norm, Ricoeur suggests that pardon can exist only as an exception to legal rules and institutions. Pardon, in Ricoeur’s words , “can find refuge only in gestures incapable of being transformed into institutions. These gestures...designate the ineluctable space of consideration due to every human being, in particular to the guilty.” In other words, it has to fly under the radar of rules and institutions. This insight is alluded to by Justice Marshall in his Wilson ruling . Marshall states that pardon is “the private, though official act of the executive magistrate, delivered to the individual for whose benefit it is intended, and not communicated officially to the Court.” The pardon remains incognito, or under the radar, in the sense that it is an extra-legal act that does not pass through legal institutions. In these last days of the Biden administration, this incognito of pardon offers an important reminder of the need for pardon as well as its limitations. The democratic transfer of power always involves an implicit act of pardon that remains incognito. It allows for a fresh start in which society can acknowledge the past transgressions of an outgoing administration, but move on with the hope to begin again. Though critics of the president may reject individual acts of pardon, especially involving family members, society should not give up on the power of pardon itself: It brings a renewal of hope to democracy. Editor’s note: This is an updated version of an article first published on Dec. 15, 2024. Scott Davidson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Nov 23 (PTI) Shiv Sena nominee Hikmat Udhan defeated former Maharashtra minister and incumbent NCP (SP) MLA Rajesh Tope by a margin of 2,309 votes from the Ghansawangi seat in the assembly polls, results of which were declared on Saturday. Notably, Antarwali Sarati village in Jalna district, which became the epicentre of the Maratha quota agitation led by Majoj Jarange, is part of the Ghansawangi seat. Hikmat Udhan had joined the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena after quitting the Shiv Sena (UBT) ahead of the elections. Rajesh Tope had won the Ghansawangi constituency in the 2009, 2014 and 2019 assembly elections. Udhan polled 98,496 votes while Tope's tally stood at 96,187 votes. Independent candidate Satish Ghadage bagged 23,696 votes while VBA nominee Kaveri Khatke polled 20731 votes. Political experts observed that the consolidation of OBC votes in favour of the Mahayuti coalition could have negated the potential impact of the Maratha caste equation seen in the region in Lok Sabha polls held earlier this year. (This story has not been edited by THE WEEK and is auto-generated from PTI)Christian Cueva celebrated his birthday on November 23 in a special way, accompanied by his partner, the singer Pamela Franco. During one of the cumbiambera presentations, the soccer player took the opportunity to start his celebration, in an event full of music and romance. Those attending Pamela’s concert could see how the footballer enjoyed his beloved’s songs, showing his support. Pamela Franco surprises Christian Cueva with a romantic message The most emotional moment of the night came when Pamela, while performing her popular song ‘Simply Friends’, looked at Christian Cueva and, before continuing with the next verse, surprised the audience with a sincere “I love you, my love. So affectionate he”. This gesture, full of complicity, was quickly captured by attendees and went viral on social networks. Furthermore, a song that marked the night was ‘El cervecero’, a song that Pamela Franco and Christian Cueva recently recorded together. Despite a legal conflict related to the copyright of the song, both managed to reach an agreement with the composer to continue performing it in their presentations, which allowed them to share this song at their special celebration. Christian Cueva and Pamela Franco got permission to sing ‘El Cervecero’ After weeks of uncertainty, Pamela Franco and Christian Cueva managed to obtain authorization to sing ‘El cervecero’. The agreement was made official through a document signed by the author, José María Yzazaga. The text, spread on the platform Instarándula states: “I, José María Yzazaga Quispe (...) in full use of my mental faculties, authorize Pamela Cristle Franco Viera (...) to perform it in shows and musical productions that I see fit, as well as in audio and video, a song of my authorship whose title is ‘Cervecero’ (...)”. With this permission, Cave and Franco They will be able to include the song in live performances and other musical projects, thus consolidating their success. However, it has not been confirmed whether the composer’s initial demand, who had requested compensation of 200,000 soles due to previous use of the theme. Join our entertainment channel
Confident Bucs gear up for stretch run against lighter season-ending scheduleCrazy Rich Asians 2 Update: Jon M. Chu Expands on Why Movie Isn’t Happening Soon
King scores 19 as Northeastern takes down FGCU 59-55Is the NORAD Santa tracker safe from a government shutdown?