Changes

The power comes from the royal English Prerogative of Kings, which predates the Norman invasion. British monarchs frequnelt sold pardons and conditional pardons were used to populate the colonies.<ref>Patrick R. Cowlishaw, "The Conditional Presidential Pardon." 28 ''Stanford Law Review'' 149-77</ref> Felons were also forgiven if they agreed to serve one year as a soldier.<ref>William F. Duker, "The Presidential Power to Pardon." 18 ''William and Mary Law Review'' 255-72</ref> Edward III granted pardons to celebrate his birthday and James II shared pardon sales with the two ladies "then most in favor."<ref>Kathleen Dean Moore, "Pardon for Good and Sufficient Reasons," University of 27 ''Richmond Law Review'' 281-8</ref> To curb abuses in which kings would grant pardons in exchange for money, Parliament tried unsuccessfully to limit this power.  However, in 1701 Parliament limited this power in the ''Act of Settlement''.

The power comes from the royal English Prerogative of Kings, which predates the Norman invasion. British monarchs frequnelt sold pardons and conditional pardons were used to populate the colonies.<ref>Patrick R. Cowlishaw, "The Conditional Presidential Pardon." 28 ''Stanford Law Review'' 149-77</ref> Felons were also forgiven if they agreed to serve one year as a soldier.<ref>William F. Duker, "The Presidential Power to Pardon." 18 ''William and Mary Law Review'' 255-72</ref> Edward III granted pardons to celebrate his birthday and James II shared pardon sales with the two ladies "then most in favor."<ref>Kathleen Dean Moore, "Pardon for Good and Sufficient Reasons," University of 27 ''Richmond Law Review'' 281-8</ref> To curb abuses in which kings would grant pardons in exchange for money, Parliament tried unsuccessfully to limit this power.  However, in 1701 Parliament limited this power in the ''Act of Settlement''.

Under the ''Articles of Confederation'', the executive had no pardon power. Likewise, the power was not a feature of either of the major plans discussed at the Constitutional Convention (the ''Viginia Plan'' and the ''New Jersey Plan''). Nor did the power appear in a first draft sent to the Committee on Detail. However, Charles Pickney and Alexander Hamilton submitted minor plans at the Convention which contained the power and John Rutlegde, a member of the Committee, scribbled it into the margins. The first real discussion of pardons did not take place until the end of a working day near the end of the Convention (August 25th). Thus, there was "relative paucity of debate" at the Federal Convention concerning the pardon power<ref>James N. Jorgensen. 1993. "Clemency and Pardons Note," 27 ''University of Richmond Law Review'', 345-370</ref> and little further discussion at the state ratifying conventions.<ref>David G. Adler. 1989. "The President's Pardon Power." In Thomas Cronin's ''Inventing the Presidency''</ref>  

Under the ''Articles of Confederation'', the executive had no pardon power. Likewise, the power was not a feature of either of the major plans discussed at the Constitutional Convention (the ''Viginia Plan'' and the ''New Jersey Plan''). Nor did the power appear in a first draft sent to the Committee on Detail. However, Charles Pickney and Alexander Hamilton submitted minor plans at the Convention which contained the power and John Rutlegde, a member of the Committee, scribbled it into the margins. The first real discussion of pardons did not take place until the end of a working day near the end of the Convention (August 25). Thus, there was "relative paucity of debate" at the Federal Convention concerning the pardon power<ref>James N. Jorgensen. 1993. "Clemency and Pardons Note," 27 ''University of Richmond Law Review'', 345-370</ref> and little further discussion at the state ratifying conventions.<ref>David G. Adler. 1989. "The President's Pardon Power." In Thomas Cronin's ''Inventing the Presidency''</ref>  

''The Federalist'' No. 74 (written by Alexander Hamilton well after the Convention) explains its purpose of "humanity and good policy" and to lessen harsh results of the criminal code.  Several Supreme Court decisions have upheld a broad interpretation of the Pardon Power.<ref>''United States v. Wilson'', 32 U.S. 150 (1833)</ref><ref>''Ex parte'' Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1867)</ref><ref>''United States v. Klein'', 80 U.S. 128 (1871)</ref><ref>''Biddle v. Perovich'', 274 U.S. 480 (1927)</ref><ref>''Schick v. Reed'', 419 U.S. 256 (1974)</ref>

''The Federalist'' No. 74 (written by Alexander Hamilton well after the Convention) explains its purpose of "humanity and good policy" and to lessen harsh results of the criminal code.  Several Supreme Court decisions have upheld a broad interpretation of the Pardon Power.<ref>''United States v. Wilson'', 32 U.S. 150 (1833)</ref><ref>''Ex parte'' Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1867)</ref><ref>''United States v. Klein'', 80 U.S. 128 (1871)</ref><ref>''Biddle v. Perovich'', 274 U.S. 480 (1927)</ref><ref>''Schick v. Reed'', 419 U.S. 256 (1974)</ref>

'''Sources:''' <references/>

'''Sources:''' <references/>

== External Links ==

== External links ==

* [http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons.htm Pardons Page, University of Pittsburgh]

* [http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons.htm Pardons Page, University of Pittsburgh]

* [http://pardonpower.com Pardon Power Blog]

* [http://pardonpower.com Pardon Power Blog]

* [http://www.time.com/time/2007/presidential_pardons/ TIME Magazine's "Notorious" Pardons]

* [http://www.time.com/time/2007/presidential_pardons/ TIME Magazine's "Notorious" Pardons]

[[category:United States]]

[[Category:United States]]