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 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>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 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>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 (written 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>

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>