> Out of curiosity - how powerful is a presidential pardon?

It is absolute.

> Can a US president basically compose an edict saying 'This man is a bleeding hero and no branch of the US government will ever hold any of his actions related to incident X against him, now or in the future or else they shall snuff it!' and have this respected by his successors?

No, a pardon only affects criminal prosecutions and punishments -- to the extent covered by the text of the pardon, any future prosecution (or continuation of existing prosecution) is barred, and any criminal punishment (including and disabilities imposed by past conviction) is terminated. It doesn't affect any other action by the government, including any civil action that might be available in law.

> Is it narrowly defined, eg. the pardonee (is that even a word) may not be prosecuted for his violation of US code such-and-such, section so-so committed on or before date DDMMYY? (Leaving any successor free to throw the book at him for anything not explicitly covered by the issued pardon?)

It can be as narrow or broad as the President chooses. About the only limit is that it is generally held (though this has never had occasion to be tested) that the Constitutional power of the pardon does not extend to prospective pardons (that is, a pardon cannot apply to offenses that occur after the pardon is issued.)

One more limitation: a Presidential pardon doesn't affect state laws. If, for instance, Snowden had committed some crime against the state that he was residing in, the President would not forgive it.

-Thank you; most educational (And exotic, seeing as we don't have anything like it around here - being a monarchy would be a lot more fun (and less democratic!) if the head of state held more power)

As things go, it can be argued that the King holds less privilege than his minions; suffrage does not extend to him, for instance. The job undeniably carries some perks, though.

Good thing presidential pardons does not extend to future crimes - that would be - ahem - interesting. Very much so.

If I am elected president, I will pardon every criminal on the planet, on the condition they seek rehabilitation in community centers. I will also unconstitutionally use my executive powers to close all prisons, dictate human rights-based technology to be made, and end executive power for all time.

Yes, Snowden could be pardoned preemptively and expansively. That's how Ford pardoned Nixon.

No, a pardon could not be reversed by a future president (else: Ford could not truly have pardoned Nixon). There's SCOTUS precedent on both of these.

For clarity:

When you say "preemptively", you mean in advance of trial or even indictment. So far as I'm aware, the President cannot issue a pardon in advance of the crime.

It's incredibly powerful. The President can actually pardon entire classes of people. Carter issued a pardon to all draft dodgers. Ford had previously issued a limited pardon to some.

Obama could actually commute the sentences of everyone serving a sentence strictly for marijuana possession to time served.

The only limit is that it doesn't apply to state crimes.

The President of the United States has the almost unqualified power to grant pardons for crimes against the United States, whether current or past, whether unindicted or convicted.

I came to comment that Snowden's request for pardon would presumably require a conviction, but on further research you're right that the president's pardon powers are "unlimited" -- even before legal proceedings have begun:

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/05/opinion/l-constitution-all...

A hangover from the more corrupt days of the 1770s? Not sure what in the world you're trying to say here, honestly.

No offense intended America politicians get away with naughty shit that would get you 5 years in jail in the UK. political.

Let alone the whole machine system which is well with living memory and handing out ambassadorships to mates instead of professional diplomats doesn't look good.

lb1lf: "how powerful is a presidential pardon?"

The president can pardon offenses of federal law. A state's governor can pardon offenses of that particular state's laws.

There's a Clancy novel built around the concept of a private spy agency with blank-check pardons for future actions from a President.

That idea also figured heavily in one of the Jack Bauer TV shows. I had an interesting discussion with a couple of lawyers over beers about it once. As far as anyone could tell, there's no precedent to suggest that that it would work, but none to say that it wouldn't work, either. If the President was still in office and didn't object when you tried to invoke the advance-written pardon, it wouldn't seem as though anyone else would really have a place to interfere. The sticky situation would be if you got an advance pardon and then did something really heinous, such that the President who gave the original blank-check pardon objected on the basis that the conduct wasn't meant to be covered. You'd be on thin ice then.

> If the President was still in office and didn't object when you tried to invoke the advance-written pardon, it wouldn't seem as though anyone else would really have a place to interfere.

If the President is still in office, as head of the executive branch he can prevent prosecution even if there is no pardon, and, anyway, he could just issue a new and properly retrospective pardon. A pardon that's only good if the President that issued it is still in office and still agrees with it is exactly the same as no pardon at all.

The pardon power is only meaningful because it is binding on the federal government, and not just as long as the current President is in power, but forever (or, at least, until the Constitution is amended to change its status.)

AFAICT, the general consensus among those who study Constitutional law is that prospective pardons (those for crimes not yet committed when the pardon is issued) are nullities; for there to be a crime for a pardon or reprieve to apply to, it must have been committed (even if it has not been discovered) when the pardon is issued.

But because no prospective pardons have been issued and then their effect challenged in court, this has never been litigated, and there is no case law on the subject. (But if prospective pardons were possible, given the established breadth of the pardon power in other aspects, it would mean that the President could essentially prevent the US government from ever adopting -- or, rather, ever enforcing -- certain criminal laws that do not yet exist, simply by issuing prospective pardons for any offenses resulting from particular classes of conduct that he doesn't want to ever be criminalized.)

Clintons pardon of Marc Rich happened on his last day in office.

I seem to recall the Wikipedia article speculating on the checks and balances available if Marc Rich actually did return to the US

You should check that out

Most pardons happen on the last day of office. Also, there are 'pocket vetos' where the acting president either doesn't want to outright veto to alienate his party or wants to see the election results before making a final decision. Either way, the President ends up vetoing or signing controversial bills in their last few months in office.

I seem to recall there was a president that forgot to veto some bills and the next president signed them. I think there was even a Supreme Court case that held the laws as constitutional.

Correction: a few controversial pardons happen on the last day of office. The majority of presidential pardons flow through the normal process where a person applies for the pardon, has their case reviewed by a team formed for this purpose. Obama stands out as one of the presidents who has issued the FEWEST pardons, although he says he may change that. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-08-04/obama-says-he...

President Obama could certainly pardon him without any qualifications. Which is not to say that some people in government wouldn't use their bureaucratic powers to harass him once he returns because they dislike what he did. For example, he might get the run-around when renewing his driver's license: "Oh, we need to see your prescription from your optician before we can put your eyeglass restriction on your license" (obviously not true but he won't get his license until he complies)

Which assumes someone at the DMV would be cooperative with another human. Slim chance of this