News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Barack Obama: Why we must rethink solitary confinement. Parent comment

Re:Barack Obama: Why we must rethink solitary confinement by LordKano on Tuesday January 26, 2016 @01:43AM (#10972179)
released by way of presidential pardon.

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Barack Obama: Why we must rethink solitary confinement by IIAOPSW on Tuesday January 26, 2016 @01:52AM (#10972204)
After multiple comments, I looked it up and yeah, its true. President can't pardon state level crimes. Although in my original reading of the constitution (the exact section you posted), I don't see why that is true.

>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?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Barack Obama: Why we must rethink solitary confinement by azernik on Tuesday January 26, 2016 @02:13AM (#10972256)
Seems from the very beginning; an act establishing several federal crimes in 1790 [1] - only one year after the Constitution came into force - was titled "An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes Against the United States".

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...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Barack Obama: Why we must rethink solitary confinement by chungy on Tuesday January 26, 2016 @02:18AM (#10972272)
> Is there some case law that has determined "offenses against the United States" == Federal crime only?

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]