President Joe Biden‘s decision to pardon his son, Hunter Biden, has sparked controversy due to his previous commitments not to use presidential powers for family benefit. Critics, including Republicans and some Democrats, view the pardon as an abuse of power and a reversal of Biden’s promises.

Is the pardon really an abuse of power? In my opinion, No.  But, Yes, it is a reversal of Biden’s promise? Now what because the Pardon can’t be overturned?

The Why and Effects of the Pardon

The Pardon spares Hunter from prison for federal gun and tax convictions, with Biden arguing that his son was unfairly targeted. This move has intensified debates on presidential pardons and their implications for justice and political norms.

President Biden’s change of heart regarding pardoning his son, Hunter Biden, was influenced by several factors. He cited concerns about political motivations behind Hunter’s prosecution, believing it was an effort to undermine him personally. Biden also expressed that Hunter had been selectively and unfairly targeted, which he saw as a miscarriage of justice. (Heard that statement before?  Yes.  Donald Trump used the same rhetoric. What is our political system turning into?). That was a digress … moving on.

Additionally, Biden’s emotional connection to his family, especially after personal tragedies, played a role in his decision. The pardon came after a family gathering over Thanksgiving, suggesting familial influence on his decision.

What Is a Presidential Pardon?

A presidential pardon is a power granted to the President of the United States by Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. It allows the president to forgive federal offenses, thereby releasing individuals from punishment and restoring their civil rights such as the right to vote, hold public office, or serve on a jury. This power extends to various forms of clemency, including pardons, commutations, and reprieves. 

While this authority is broad and largely unchecked, its use is often accompanied by intense scrutiny, particularly when it involves politically sensitive or ethically challenging scenarios, such as pardoning a family member.  The process typically involves a review by the Office of the Pardon Attorney, although the president can issue pardons independently.

While pardons are typically issued post-conviction, the president can also use them preemptively to shield someone from prosecution. Notably, the pardon power only applies to federal offenses.

Limitations of The Pardon

• It does not erase the record of conviction
• It does not apply to state crimes or impeachment cases
• It does not restrict the use of this power based on the recipient’s relationship to the president.

Can a President Pardon Their Son or Daughter?

Legally, yes, a president can pardon their child if the child has been convicted of or is under investigation for federal crimes.

However, the ethical and political implications of such a decision can be far-reaching. The lack of legal barriers does not negate the perception of nepotism or abuse of power, which can significantly impact public trust.

So, did Biden do any wrong by pardoning his son?

There, we have the answer.  It is legally correct for a president to pardon a relative.  Accordingly, President Biden was within the law to have pardoned his son, Hunter.

I would have, too. And I’m positive that any loving patent would have done the same if they had the power or privilege to do so. So, why the controversy?

Ethical Considerations

While legal, pardoning a family member raises several ethical concerns:

1. Conflict of Interest:

A president is expected to act in the nation’s best interest, not their personal or familial interests. Pardoning a close family member can appear to prioritize private relationships over public responsibility, undermining confidence in the presidency’s impartiality.

2. Accountability:

The justice system is built on the principle that no one is above the law. Pardoning a child might be viewed as circumventing this principle, eroding the credibility of the legal system.

3. Public Perception:

Such an act could fuel accusations of favoritism and damage the president’s reputation, both domestically and internationally. The president may face criticism for setting a precedent that undermines the rule of law. However, Biden is not the first to have pardoned a relative.

Historical Precedents

To date, there are no instances of a U.S. president pardoning their own child. However, some controversial pardons have highlighted the complexities of this power:

• Richard Nixon’s Pardon (1974): President Gerald Ford granted a preemptive pardon to former President Nixon for his role in the Watergate scandal. Although Nixon was not Ford’s family member, the pardon sparked debate about whether it was politically motivated and undermined accountability.

• Bill Clinton’s Pardons (2001): On his last day in office, President Clinton issued a series of controversial pardons, including one for his half-brother Roger Clinton, who had been convicted of drug-related charges. This act was widely criticized as an abuse of power.

Arguments For and Against Pardoning a Family Member

Arguments For:

A president might justify pardoning their child as an act of compassion, particularly if they believe the justice system treated their family member unfairly.

Supporters might argue that the president’s legal authority to pardon is absolute and not subject to moral considerations.

Arguments Against:

Critics contend that such a pardon represents a fundamental abuse of power, undermining the integrity of the presidency.

It could set a dangerous precedent, encouraging future presidents to use pardons for personal gain rather than justice.

Impact of The Pardon on Taxpayers

The impact of a presidential pardon on taxpayers depends on the circumstances surrounding the pardon.

While the act of issuing a pardon itself does not directly cost taxpayers, the financial burden of resources already spent and potential downstream effects will fall on taxpayers, making it an unavoidable consequence of controversial or preemptive pardons. The associated legal, administrative, and societal consequences can lead to significant financial implications. The most pressing concern is the potential waste of taxpayer-funded resources on investigations, trials, and rebuilding public trust after a controversial pardon.

It is therefore essential for any president to weigh their decision carefully, considering not only the legal and ethical dimensions but also the broader impact on public resources and national confidence.

Why Prosecute if a person/persons would eventually be pardoned? 

I’m glad you asked. It’s not necessarily a waste of time or taxpayers’ money.

While a pardon may nullify the immediate legal consequences, there are broader purposes to prosecution and alternatives available to ensure accountability for federal crimes. Here’s a nuanced explanation:

1. Preserving the Rule of Law

Prosecuting someone for federal crimes, even if they might be pardoned later, upholds the principle that everyone is subject to the law. It demonstrates that no one is immune to investigation or prosecution, even if ultimate consequences are later negated.

2. Public Record and Accountability

Prosecutions create a public record of wrongdoing, documenting evidence and establishing guilt or innocence in the eyes of the law.

A pardon does not erase the conviction or findings from the public record (unless explicitly coupled with an expungement), ensuring that the individual’s actions remain part of their legal and moral history.

3. Judicial and Public Oversight:

Prosecuting high-profile crimes allows courts and the public to scrutinize evidence and assess the fairness of the justice system. Even if a pardon nullifies the punishment, the process can expose systemic issues or confirm the legitimacy of the charges.

In summary, while it may seem inefficient to prosecute someone who could eventually be pardoned, the judicial process serves critical purposes, such as establishing accountability, preserving public trust, and creating a historical record. However, in cases where a pardon is anticipated or announced early, it may lead to debates about the best use of taxpayer resources.

Citizens and the judiciary have alternatives to ensure accountability, including state prosecutions, civil litigation, and political or social consequences. Together, these measures provide multiple layers of oversight and reinforce the principle that justice must be pursued, even in the face of potential pardons.

CONCLUSION

The Presidential Pardon is a powerful tool intended to promote justice and mercy. It carries absolute power but its use must be guided by wisdom and integrity.

While legally permissible, pardoning a son or daughter risks significant ethical and political backlash, potentially eroding public trust in the presidency and the rule of law.

In the end, the decision to pardon a family member lies at the intersection of legality, morality, and public accountability. A president who exercises this power must weigh their personal loyalty against their duty to the nation, recognizing that the legacy of such a choice will resonate far beyond their term in office.

In order to avoid future controversies, Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution would need to be amended to restrict or define any presidential limitations.