George Mason was Prophetic

The alleged abuse of Joe Biden’s autopen (which was apparently quite active in the last few hours of his administration before Donald Trump took the Oath of Office) aside, I’m grappling with the notion of the power to pardon someone before they have even been indicted for a crime. This has not simply been abused, but I would argue it creates an untouchable class of individuals in a society that is supposed to mete out justice blindly to everyone.

An American justice system where, dare I say it, no one is supposed to be above the law – not politicians or their relatives, not those who committed treason, not those who engaged and funded a Communist laboratory to develop a bio-weapon that laid waste to a thriving economy, crippled the education of children, and killed millions of human beings – that sentiment, that no one is above the law, rings hollow and false.

But where did the practice of granting pardons before a formal accusation, indictment, or trial originate? Well, it was a royal invention that can be traced as far back as the reign of King Ine of Wessex, roughly 688-725 AD...apparently.

According to Grok:

By the time of Henry VIII in the 16th century, statutes confirmed this as an exclusive royal prerogative.

You know, Henry VIII, that paragon of virtue who beheaded Catherine Howard, plundered and burned the monasteries, had Thomas More imprisoned and then beheaded for refusing to recognize Henry as the head of the new Church of England and to recognize Henry's marriage to Anne Boleyn (who Henry also beheaded), had the Duke of Buckingham executed, among his other numerous tyrannical atrocities.

Grok continues (emphasis mine):

Legal authorities such as Sir Edward Coke described a pardon as “a work of mercy, whereby the King, either before attainder, sentence, or conviction, or after, forgiveth any crime, offence, punishment [or] execution.”

Sir William Blackstone and other common-law writers similarly treated the power as exercisable at various stages after an offense had occurred. Medieval practice included pardons issued before trial, sometimes for practical reasons (e.g., addressing rigid rules of homicide law that treated accidental or defensive killings as felonies) or other motives. Key limits existed: a pardon generally could not cover crimes not yet committed (that would resemble suspending the law, restricted by later developments such as the English Bill of Rights), and certain restrictions applied (e.g., regarding impeachments after the Act of Settlement of 1701, or private appeals/suits).

Pardons before formal proceedings were nonetheless recognized and used. The U.S. Framers drew directly on this English model when drafting Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, which grants the President power “to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” Debates at the Constitutional Convention and during ratification reflected awareness of the power’s breadth, including the possibility of pardons before indictment (George Mason raised concerns that a president might use pre-indictment pardons to shield associates and stop inquiries).

George Mason was right to be so concerned, and he describes precisely how Joe Biden (and/or those who actually ran his administration while Joe fixated on ice cream cones, snoozed at the beach, fondled little girls, and explored different ways to exit a stage) abused this pardoning power.

Grok continues (emphasis mine):

The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this scope in Ex parte Garland (1866). The Court held that the pardon power “extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.” This ruling underpins modern recognition of preemptive pardons for completed federal offenses, even absent formal charges.

Notable historical U.S. examples include certain Civil War-era grants, Gerald Ford’s 1974 pardon of Richard Nixon (for offenses he “has committed or may have committed”), Jimmy Carter’s Vietnam draft-evader pardons (covering many not yet prosecuted), and others.

While the general idea of rulers granting clemency or amnesty appears in much older sources (e.g., the Code of Hammurabi, Roman practices of clementia, medieval European rulers, and various religious or customary traditions), the specific legal tradition of individual pardons before formal accusation—as understood and practiced in Anglo-American systems—traces to the English common-law prerogative. The power applies only after an offense has occurred; it does not authorize immunity for future crimes.

Despite Joe Biden’s, or probably more accurately, Joe Biden’s autopen’s pardon of Dr. Mengele (not sure what happened there…perhaps an auto edit/correct of some sort) Dr. Fauci, he is still liable to be prosecuted for crimes by individual states in the Union, and those indictments may be forthcoming.

In the meantime, it may be prudent to explore whether presidential pardons before indictments for crimes are handed down create a class of untouchable Americans who clearly have more rights than the rest of us peasants. If it requires a constitutional amendment, then the odds of that happening are remote at best…and even more remote as America transitions to a communist state. I kid—sort of.