The President doesn't have the authority to pardon someone for a State crime. I suppose he could threaten to pardon federal inmates who were residents of non-compliant states before their incarceration.

Article II, Section 2. The President…shall have the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

Without the abbreviation: The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

>he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

Is there some case law that has determined "offenses against the United States" == Federal crime only?

EDIT: And the root of this phrase seems to be in the distinction between civil and criminal offenses - an crime is an "offense against the State" [2], where the government has standing to bring the case to court rather than the individuals (if any) specifically harmed. In this context, the usage "offense against the United States" pretty clearly indicates crimes where the United States rather than an individual states has jurisdiction.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_Act_of_1790

[2] http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/the-differen...

At least going by the spiritual intent of the Constitution, the United States wasn't so much of a country on its own as a coalition of multiple tiny countries (made it easier for trade, war, debts), much as the member states of the European Union are still treated as independent countries today. The European Union hasn't yet had a 'civil' war to change the public opinion and perception of its governance, though.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-bans-solitary-...

So, at least in this case, it looks like he lived up to the hype.

I think that solitary confinement is definitely unethical. But I also think the idea of mass pardons for prisoners if states don't reform solitary confinement would be political suicide. Republicans would be running ads saying that Obama wants violent criminals to be released because prison isn't comfortable enough. Democrats wouldn't support it. And I think it might sink the democratic party's chances in the presidential election. Sure there are more things that Obama could have done to solve specific problems. But I don't think some complaints would have been fixed under any president.

He's a lame duck with less than 1 year remaining in his term. His political career is over. He has already peaked.

Ignoring the implications of such a move for a moment, the President does not have the power to pardon state crimes, so that plan would not work.

If only one of those pardoned were to commit murder, wave goodbye to any hope at criminal justice reform.

I still remember the debate about Guantanamo Bay detention camp and how he wanted to completely close it, but nothing actually happened. [1] I don't know which one is worse : Holding prisoners without a charge for decades or holding criminals in solitary confinement.

1 : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#...

Part of the problem is that people don't understand the President's powers and expect more from him than he can deliver.

The other part of the problem is that the President himself seems to like promising more than he can actually deliver. He doesn't say "I'll try to close Guantanamo, but Congress really wants to keep it open and it's ultimately up to them." He just says, "I'll close it" and then, oops, can't.