> The president only has the power to pardon people convicted or accused of violating federal law and prosecuted in federal court.
The president can pardon any offense against the united states except impeachment. State offenses have always been left to governors to pardon but states are what make the united states and as such state offenses while violating only state law, they are an offense against a state that is part of the union and affect a citizen of the union, as such the president has ulitmate power to pardon.
This is similar to how state legal dispute or prosecution can ultimately be decided by the supreme court of the united states. It does not stop at the state's supreme court.
If trump gets elected next year for example, he can pardon himself of his upcoming likely conviction in georgia. Else you have a situation where in 2028 as soon as he leaves office he becomes a wanted criminal.
Presidents know that pardoning a stare criminal is overriding state law and alienating voters from that state and risking rifts in the union.
I believe the president supersedes state governors in every power they have except things like appointments and firings at the state level.
> Does the President have authority to grant clemency for a state conviction?
No. The President’s clemency power is conferred by Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which provides: “The President . . . shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” Thus, the President’s authority to grant clemency is limited to federal offenses
That's DoJ policy. The legal community in the majority also agree with that, but, here is the text from wikipedia:
> The Constitution grants the president the power to pardon "offenses against the United States".[5] An offense that violates state law, but not federal law, is an offense against that state rather than an offense against the United States; however, the Supreme Court has never ruled on this matter or in the President's power to grant a habeas corpus petition for a state offense where it has been denied by a federal court.
If you consider english common law and the absolute nature of the pardon power, including presumptive crimes then this is an untested grey area. If the power was limited, the limit would have been stated. The current consensus is that the limit is implied, but an argument can be made that since english kings had pardon power over their whole domain, the same is implied when stating "offenses against the united states".
Federal authority supersedes state authority in every other case, if this was different it should have been stated so as it is a deviance. But ultimately this would come down to a supreme court opinion.
The president can pardon any offense against the united states except impeachment. State offenses have always been left to governors to pardon but states are what make the united states and as such state offenses while violating only state law, they are an offense against a state that is part of the union and affect a citizen of the union, as such the president has ulitmate power to pardon.
This is similar to how state legal dispute or prosecution can ultimately be decided by the supreme court of the united states. It does not stop at the state's supreme court.
If trump gets elected next year for example, he can pardon himself of his upcoming likely conviction in georgia. Else you have a situation where in 2028 as soon as he leaves office he becomes a wanted criminal.
Presidents know that pardoning a stare criminal is overriding state law and alienating voters from that state and risking rifts in the union.
I believe the president supersedes state governors in every power they have except things like appointments and firings at the state level.