Posted originally on Jan 27, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
COMMENT: Dear Marty
I read your article about Fauci’s pardon being unconstitutional, but I have something to add.
The basis for pre-emptive pardons being unlawful can be found in ancient English constitutional law, see the Prince of Orange’s 1688 Declaration of Reason that preceded England’s 1688 Bill of Rights. This carries over to USA via the 9th Amendment “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” A pre-emptive pardon also violates due process of law, see 5th & 14th Amendment and can therefore only be done after conviction, see this passage from the Prince of Orange’s (Future King William IIIs) Declaration of Reason.”For though the King may pardon the Punishment that a Transgressor has incurred, and to which he is condemned; as in Cases of Treason or Felony; yet it cannot be, with any Colour of Reason, inferred from thence, that the King can intirely suspend the Execution of those Laws relating to Treason or Felony, unless it is pretended, that he is cloathed with a despotick and arbitrary Power, and that the Lives, Liberties, Honours, and Estates of the Subjects, depend wholly on his goodwill and Pleasure, and are intirely subject to him; which must infallibly follow on the King’s having a Power to suspend the Execution of Laws, and to dispense with them.”
Prince of Orange’s Declaration: 19 December 1688 | British History Online
This leads to Art.1 of the 1688 Bill of Rights:
“That the pretended Power of Suspending of Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regall Authority without Consent of Parlyament is illegall.” King/President may pardon after conviction but only Parliament/Congress may suspend the law.”
This has similar meaning as Article II of the US Constitution that requires the President to ensure “that the Laws be faithfully executed”
This all goes back to due process of law, the President cannot interfere with due process through the prerogative of pardon or mercy.
Going back to the old world, citing Sir Edward Coke, The US Supreme Court stated in 1855 that The words, “due process of law” (in the 5th & 14th Amendments), were undoubtedly intended to convey the same meaning as the words, “by the law of the land”, in Art.29 Magna Carta 1297. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/59/272.html
The Scottish 1689 Claim of Rights states the same thing in different language in Art.1, “That all Proclamationes asserting ane absolute power to Cass annull and Dissable lawes… are Contrair to Law”” and it states in the pre-amble, “Wheras King James the Seventh… Did By the advyce of wicked and evill Counsellers (Secretaries of State) Invade the fundamentall Constitution of this Kingdome And altered it from a legall limited monarchy to ane Arbitrary Despotick power and in a publick proclamation asserted ane absolute power to cass annull and dissable all the lawes particularly arraigning the lawes Establishing the protestant religion and did Exerce that power to the subversion of the protestant Religion and to the violation of the lawes and liberties of the Kingdome”
Claim of Right Act 1689
legislation.gov.uk
apple-touch-icon.png
REPLY: Excellent research. The Common Law is supposed to apply in the USA. I hope Trump’s team reads this. As the outgoing president, Joe Biden gave pardons to five family members literally minutes before Donald Trump was sworn into office. This was not just an abuse of power; it was to confirm the ultimate corruption of the Biden Crime Family. They have pocketed untold amounts of money laundered through Ukraine, and this leaves a stain on his reputation for all of history, even though they were unconstitutional. Assuming Trump criminally charges these people, it would still be decided by a jury of the people – not by Trump.
Centinel2012 