In his final hours as President of the United States, Joe Biden issued a series of preemptive pardons for Anthony Fauci, Mark Milley, the members of the January 6th Committee, and his extended family. This action was one of the most disgusting uses of presidential power to grant reprieves and pardons in the history of our Republic. And the action’s constitutionality should be questioned.
In Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution, the president is vested with the power to “grant reprieves and pardons” through these words:
“The President shall…have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.”
The keywords here are “for offenses against the United States,” which infers a criminal conviction in federal court. In fact, the US Supreme Court has already ruled on that. If you accept a pardon, there is an inference of guilt. Therefore, the question that begs to be asked is valid: Are pre-emptive presidential pardons constitutional?
Biden, in the early days of his presidency, lauded the Wilson and Roosevelt administrations, both of which expanded presidential authority and the purview of the Executive Branch unconstitutionally. Roosevelt’s New Deal was choke-full of presidential authority expansion beyond the limits of the Constitution. Brion McClanahan documents each—and the expansionist agendas of Wilson and Truman, as well as several others, in his book, 9 Presidents Who Screwed Up America: And Four Who Tried to Save Her. It’s definitely worth the time.
So, it should come as no surprise that Biden felt unencumbered by the Constitution in his actions, specifically with his precedent-setting issuance of pre-emptive presidential pardons. It’s never happened before, and, through an originalist's view of the Constitution, it appears unconstitutional.
Some would attempt to defend Biden’s actions by juxtaposing them with President Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon after his resignation stemming from the Watergate scandal. But there are significant differences between the two.
Ford’s pardon of Nixon was singular, focused solely on Nixon, covering all federal offenses he committed or was under investigation for during his presidency. It was a direct response to a specific legal threat—a threat that had already been initiated. Ford’s action prevented any further legal action against Nixon.
Biden’s actions, conversely, were preemptive because no investigative or legal actions had commenced against anyone receiving a pre-emptive pardon. Biden’s actions were aimed at protecting individuals from potential future legal actions regardless of any criminal conduct.
Biden issued pre-emptive pardons to Fauci, Milley, the J6 Committee, and his family members. However, according to the Constitution, presidential pardons are only valid for issuance in instances of transgressions against the United States. So, how could they be valid and binding?
But what to do? Well, if Biden can execute precedential actions, so can President Trump.
President Trump should instruct his Solicitor General to file an emergency petition with the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to definitively rule on the parameters of the presidential reprieve and pardon clause in Article II, Section 1.
It can be successfully argued that Article III, Section 1 gives the SCOTUS purview over establishing the defining parameters associated with Article II, Section1, through the words:
“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party…”
Because the SCOTUS is a co-equal branch of our federal government—and the one charged with judicial review—it does not need to be presented with a case to accept or decline because the Executive’s action has already taken place. All it needs is a petition from the Solicitor General.
This petition isn’t even an act of partisan politics because it concerns constitutionality; the definition and parameters would apply to all presidents regardless of party.
The Supreme Court should be motivated to make this ruling because failure to do so would create a constitutional crisis.
For example, suppose presidential pre-emptive pardons are allowed to stand. What is to keep every president, at any time, from issuing pre-emptive pardons to the entirety of his staff and cabinet? What would prevent a president from issuing pre-emptive pardons to sycophantic private citizens or crony foreign nationals?
Inaction by the SCOTUS would render moot its ruling on presidential immunity because a POTUS could, theoretically, issue himself a pre-emptive pardon for any and all actions undertaken before, during, and after his or her tenure. Hunter Biden’s pre-emptive pardon serves as precedent for that.
Moving forward, President Trump should request that liberal constitutional attorney Alan Dershowitz be seated as a Solicitor General specifically for this action in front of the Supreme Court. Dershowitz is on record as holding the idea of preemptive presidential pardon in contempt as wholly unconstitutional. Few possess his knowledge, experience, and expertise in matters of the US Constitution and constitutionality.
Additionally, Mr. Trump must talk directly to the American people, circumventing the mainstream media, and explain that this action is not an act of retribution but a question of constitutionality that would bind all presidents to limitations set forth by the Constitution. He doesn’t even have to state that he wants the pardons revoked. He is simply asking the Supreme Court—the proper authority on the Constitution—for clarification on a matter of constitutionality.
Personally, if I were in President Trump’s place and Biden would have left the pre-emptive pardons at only his son, I probably would have let the subject go. The question of what we would do for our children—especially troubled children like Hunter—is a question of personal sacrifice.
But the moment Biden issued pre-emptive pardons to Fauci, Milley, the J6 Committee, and his extended grifter family, there was no question that the issue of pre-emptive pardons had to be addressed.
We, as a nation and our federal government as a whole, have strayed far from the limitations set forth by the US Constitution. Our federal government routinely ignores the 9th and 10th Amendments even as it expands its authority beyond its constitutional boundaries by bastardizing the meanings of clauses in the Constitution and enabling the bureaucratic regulatory process. By allowing this expansion of authority, we now find our constitutional right to free speech under attack.
Mr. Biden said it himself in his farewell babblings. No one should be considered above the law. I put it to you that no president should feel he can exist above the limitations of the Constitution.
All we are asking for is a ruling by the SCOTUS on a matter of constitutionality. It’s their job, the reason that branch exists, to determine constitutionality. All we are asking is that they do their jobs.
This Is How You Come To The Aid Of Your Neighbor?
Many people may think I’m naive for believing that people rise to the occasion when disaster strikes. However, I’m not naive. I have witnessed this firsthand as a professional firefighter and paramedic and through my own experiences with numerous natural disasters, primarily hurricanes and tornadoes.
In every instance, I have witnessed people stepping up to help their neighbors and even strangers. It may be something ingrained in us as Americans; who knows?
I have come to understand one important thing: while people who "run towards the fire" can be found everywhere in our country—and likely across the globe—I notice that there are more of them in rural communities than in urban areas.
I have been told by those who have grown up in rural settings (including family members and close friends) that this is because in rural communities, because resources are so spread out, people come to depend on one another in times of crisis. It makes perfect sense.
This is why the current story coming out of fire-ravaged Southern California makes me believe that there are some real assholes in the world, and many of them come out during disasters and crises, exposing their selfishness in people’s despair.
Ariel Zilber of The New York Post reports:
“Landlords in fire-ravaged Los Angeles have jacked up rents — in some cases by more than double the price — in violation of California law against price gouging as thousands of residents seek shelter.
By law, landlords are not permitted to raise the price of housing by more than 10% after a state of emergency has been declared. But a search of local listings and horror stories from realtors show that many opportunistic landlords are openly flouting the law after the wildfires destroyed entire communities.”
She went on to say that one rental property in North Hollywood, near the disaster area, jumped by $800 overnight. And one mansion (or what would be considered a mansion by middle-class standards—five bedrooms is a bit larger than the average house) in Santa Monica, that previously listed at $12,500 per month in February 2024, now lists at $28,000 per month—a 124% increase.
The question that begs to be asked is this. What kind of a jagoff gouges people in the face of a once-in-a-lifetime disaster? The answer is obvious: The worst kind.
As pleas for help fill the threads on social media (even from those who have millions and careers that will, no doubt, afford them millions more), this is how some Californians come to the aid of their neighbors? By jacking up rent prices over 100%?? With neighbors like that, who needs enemies?!
Now, there are those who, chest out and make-up applied for the camera (and some of them need it), say full-throated that they are not trying to politicize the situation, even as they go on to castigate the rich for not paying enough in taxes to pay for the disaster and as they insist that taxes related to “climate change” could have prevented it all (cough…Maxine Waters…cough). I am not going to be disingenuous like those people. I am going to get both political and ideological about it.
In the 2024 general election, 71.17% of the voters from the five voting precincts that largely constitute the Pacific Palisades area voted Democrat. It’s estimated that the areas affected by the Eaton Fire went Democrat by 65%.
Known for its radically liberal, neo-Marxist-leaning community, these voting patterns reflect the general trend in Los Angeles County, a stronghold for Democrat candidates. This is evidenced by the fact that Southern California counties, specifically Los Angeles County, voted 70.85% in favor of retaining Gavin Newsom in his 2021 recall election.
Aside from the fact that the voters of this area voted in favor of Newsom and the ideologically driven political bullshit that has led them to this disaster, by voting demographics alone, it is fair to determine that there is a 77.17 percent chance that the landlords raising the rent prices to robber baron levels are, themselves, neo-Marxist progressive liberals.
These are the same people who virtue signal about diversity, equity, and inclusion and how everyone has to pay their “fair share.” These are the people who screech about equity of outcome being more important than equal opportunity. They are the same people who vomited invective about how greedy Donald Trump is while calling him Hitler.
These are the same people who say—nay, insist, that they know what is best for you and your children. They are people who expect you to accept their intellectual superiority over the average person.
Yet, when the chance to prove their benevolence comes into play, what do they do? They opportunistically stick it to their neighbors in a time of desperation and need. That, my friends, is the very definition of a jagoff.
And they, no doubt, will be the same assholes complaining about how the federal government isn’t providing enough taxpayer-funded relief to the victims, even as they refuse to acknowledge that their votes—their ideologically fueled votes—are responsible for the extent of this avoidable disaster.
Meanwhile, people in Western North Carolina and Eastern Tennessee still live in tents and without basic amenities after officials denied them the charity of the Amish community, which offered donations of tiny cabins. This kindness came from complete strangers who traveled hundreds of miles at their own expense to help their neighbors.
All the people of Western North Carolina and Eastern Tennessee got from the woke-loving Biden administration was a directive to “go online” to apply for $750. But hey, at least they aren’t getting gouged on rent for their tents, right? Meanwhile, they’re looking for an internet connection. And if it weren’t for Elon Musk, there would be no communications connections at all.
Yes, there are two worlds in the US today, but hopefully, that’s coming to an end. And it's time the one the woke elite live in to crash down and burn. Shame on those people gouging those who have lost everything, regardless of who they might be and from what station in society.
Maybe exposing these gouging blood-suckers among the ash ruins of Southern California will force them to see their greed and inhumanity. And perhaps that will cultivate some true benevolence for their fellow man…and some much-needed humility.
I say we expose them all. Expose them all!
Share this post