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 Viginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan). Nor did the power appear in a draft sent to the Committee on Detail. However, Charles Pickney and Alexander Hamilton submitted minor plans which contained the power and John Rutlegde, a member of the Committee, scribbled the power 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>Jorgensen, James N. 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 draft sent to the Committee on Detail. However, Charles Pickney and Alexander Hamilton submitted minor plans which contained the power and John Rutlegde, a member of the Committee, scribbled the power 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>Jorgensen, James N. 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 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 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>

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>