Changes

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 ''Virginia 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>  

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 ''Virginia 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>

Alexander Hamilton wrote about why a president should have the power to pardon:

 

{{cquote|He is also to be authorized to grant "reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." Humanity and good policy conspire to dictate, that the benign prerogative of pardoning should be as little as possible fettered or embarrassed. The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity, that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel. As the sense of responsibility is always strongest, in proportion as it is undivided, it may be inferred that a single man would be most ready to attend to the force of those motives which might plead for a mitigation of the rigor of the law, and least apt to yield to considerations which were calculated to shelter a fit object of its vengeance. The reflection that the fate of a fellow-creature depended on his sole fiat, would naturally inspire scrupulousness and caution; the dread of being accused of weakness or connivance, would beget equal circumspection, though of a different kind. On the other hand, as men generally derive confidence from their numbers, they might often encourage each other in an act of obduracy, and might be less sensible to the apprehension of suspicion or censure for an injudicious or affected clemency. On these accounts, one man appears to be a more eligible dispenser of the mercy of government, than a body of men.}}

It has never been decided whether Congress can grant pardons itself.  Some argue that the grant of the power to pardon only to the President by implication precludes a power to pardon by Congress.  But there is Supreme Court authority suggesting that Congress also has the power to pardon.<ref>''Brown v. Walker'', 161 U.S. 591 (1896); ''The Laura'', 114 U.S. 411 (1885).</ref>

It has never been decided whether Congress can grant pardons itself.  Some argue that the grant of the power to pardon only to the President by implication precludes a power to pardon by Congress.  But there is Supreme Court authority suggesting that Congress also has the power to pardon.<ref>''Brown v. Walker'', 161 U.S. 591 (1896); ''The Laura'', 114 U.S. 411 (1885).</ref>