Topic: Executive Power: Discuss any limits the Courts or Congress may place on the power of the president to pardon people for federal crimes. What, if any, problems might it pose if a president is able to pardon individuals for crimes involving the violation of constitutional provisions? Is this different than pardoning a simple criminal offense or is the power unlimited? Here is a case to start with: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/419/256/#tab-opinion-1951013 In your paper you should: 1) In your introduction: Clearly identify your topic, the laws in question that would be used to decide the topic, Provide a thesis statement (one or two sentences telling us what you found and what you are going to prove in the paper) and a short road map for how you plan to take us through this process in your paper. Your introduction should set your reader up for the rest of the paper so we know what to expect and in what order. 2) Describe the methods you used to research your topic. Be specific. “I conducted research online” or “I looked at law journals” is not discussing a method. You want to describe what laws you used and how they apply to this situation, telling your reader briefly what sources (specific legal databases, specific news outlets or online professional magazines) you consulted and why. Why you chose the sources you do (i.e. this article over that one, this news source over a different one) is one of the most important things you will be graded on. You should show that you considered different sources and be ready to explain why the ones you chose were valid, fact-checked, and the best for your purpose. 3) Provide context of the constitutional law issue surrounding your specific case. Provide key, recent academic sources (see below) discussing your area of law and describe the general principles in a way that makes it understandable to your reader. 4) Provide an account of events describing your specific, current, topic. You may use non-academic sources if necessary to do this. However, you should be very careful about verifying accounts wherever possible. (See below). 5) Analyze this topic then in light of the constitutional principles you described. Ensure you clearly, step by step, apply the general principles of law you identified to the situation you describe as your topic. Discuss in what ways the two are related and how the principles you learned would apply in the situation you chose. You are required to consult at least 5 scholarly sources and include what you learned from them in your paper. Scholarly means either a law review or peer reviewed journal article or a book from a reputable academic source. Professional magazines, newspapers, or unverified internet sites do not count as scholarly. You may also consult non-scholarly sources in addition to the 5 scholarly sources you cite. However, these sources must be validated and fact-checked and you need to be able to explain how you verified that what’s in them is true and useful. These can include news items from reputable news sources (you must fact check no matter where they come from), reports written by government agencies, reports written by non-governmental and civil society organizations, and professional magazines (things like the online journal produced by the American Bar Association or other legal associations). You must be prepared to discuss why you chose these sources over others and how you checked their validity. Here is a good guide for evaluating non-academic sources: https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/c.php?g=83917&p=3747680 For information and help in using the online databases from the library to conduct your research, please see links under “Writing Help”. There are a TON of resources to help you. You are expected to be able to conduct basic research at this stage and if you are not familiar with how to do that you should check those links, do library tutorials and reach out to the library and/or writing center for help well in advance of the due date. Article II, Section II states the President…shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. (Epstein, 2018) Article II restricts the presidents authority to crimes against the United States, which means that the president may pardon only individuals charged with federal offenses, not those in violation of state criminal laws. (Epstein, 2018) It also prohibits the use of the pardoning power to nullify the effects of impeachment. Finally, the president may not impose a pardon on someone who refuses to accept it. (Epstein, 2018) Cases that apply to the situation include: Ex parte Grossman- the Court found that a presidential pardon for a criminal contempt of court sentence was within the powers of the executive. There is nothing in the words “offenses against the United States” that excludes criminal contempts in the Constitution. Murphy v. Ford-The President has unlimited pardoning power and can be exercised at any time. Biddle v. Perovich-the Court held that acceptance was not required when the president commuted a death sentence to life in prison. United States v. Klein- Klein held that [the 1870] statute infringed the executive power by attempting to change the effect of . . . a pardon. Klein also held that the statute infringed the judicial power. Congress cannot limit the President’s grant of an amnesty or pardon, but it can grant other or further amnesties itself. Schick v. Reed- pardons cannot be limited by Congress, and includes power to commute a sentence on any conditions the President chooses, as long as they are not independently unconstitutional.
