The Presidential Pardon Power

We the People

National Constitution Center

History, News Commentary, News

4.6 • 1K Ratings

🗓️ 8 May 2025

⏱️ 60 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

Brian Kalt  of Michigan State College of Law and  Jeffrey Toobin, author of  The Pardon: The Politics of Presidential Mercy, join Jeffrey Rosen to explore the founders’ vision for the pardon power and the use of the presidential pardon throughout American history—from Thomas Jefferson’s pardons to those issued by Presidents Biden and Trump. This conversation was originally streamed live as part of the NCC’s America’s Town Hall series on March 27, 2025. Resources Jeffrey Toobin, ⁠The Pardon: The Politics of Presidential Mercy⁠ (2025) Brian Kalt, ⁠Constitutional Cliffhangers⁠ (2012) ⁠Nixon Pardon⁠ (Gerald Ford Presidential Library) ⁠Trump v. United States⁠ (2024) Alexander Hamilton, ⁠The Federalist No. 74⁠, New York Packet (March 28, 1788) Abraham Lincoln, “⁠Proclamation 124—Offering Pardon to Deserters⁠” (March 11, 1865) ⁠United States v. Klein⁠ (1871) ⁠Ex parte Garland⁠ (1866) Andrew Glass, “⁠Bush pardons Iran-Contra felons, Dec. 24, 1992⁠,” Politico (Dec. 24, 2018) ⁠Presidential Records Act⁠ Donald Trump, “⁠Granting Pardons and Commutation of Sentences for Certain Offenses Relating to the Events at or Near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021⁠,” (Jan. 20. 2025) Jimmy Carter, “⁠Proclamation 4483—Granting pardon for violations of the Selective Service Act, August 4, 1964, to March 28, 1973⁠,” (Jan. 21, 1973) ⁠Pardons granted by President Barack Obama⁠ ⁠Pardons granted by President Joe Biden⁠ ⁠Pardons granted by President Bill Clinton⁠ ⁠Pardons granted by President Donald Trump⁠ Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠⁠⁠[email protected]⁠⁠⁠ Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. ⁠⁠⁠Sign up⁠⁠⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming ⁠⁠⁠live program⁠⁠⁠ or watch recordings on ⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠. Support our important work. ⁠⁠⁠Donate⁠⁠

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	Hello, friends. I'm Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center,
0:08.1	and welcome to We the People, a weekly show of constitutional debate.
0:11.9	The National Constitution Center is a nonpartisan nonprofit,
0:15.1	chartered by Congress to increase awareness and understanding of the Constitution among the American people.
0:28.6	Recently, on America's Town Hall, I convened two legal commentators to discuss the founders' debates over the pardon power and to explore significant presidential pardons throughout American history.
0:32.6	Jeffrey Tubin is the author of the new book, The Pardon, The Politics of Presidential Mercy,
0:38.4	and Brian Kalt of Michigan State University is the author of Constitutional Clifhangers,
0:43.7	a legal guide for presidents and their enemies, which has a chapter on presidential self-pardons.
0:50.0	Enjoy the show.
0:52.0	Thank you so much for joining Brian Calt and Jeff Tubin.
0:56.1	It's an honor to welcome you both for this really timely discussion.
1:00.4	I want to begin the beginning with the history and original understanding of pardons.
1:06.4	Jeff, in your wonderful and really well-time book, you quote James Wilson at the Constitutional
1:12.7	Convention on pardons, and you quote him as saying, if the president be himself party to the guilt,
1:18.6	he can be impeached and prosecuted. You say Wilson's response, which carried the day,
1:23.2	suggests that self-pardon is not a possibility because of a president pardon himself, he could not be
1:28.8	prosecuted. Tell us more about Wilson's argument and why you think self-pardons are not
1:34.5	constitutional. Well, he didn't think they were constitutional. I actually do think they're
1:41.1	constitutional today. I think, you know, we live in a moment where
1:49.2	the dominant mode of analysis at the Supreme Court is textualism. And the idea is that the
2:00.0	conservative majority on the court says, if it's not in the text,
2:07.3	it's not constitutional.
	...

Transcript will be available on the free plan in 22 days. Upgrade to see the full transcript now.

Previous episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from National Constitution Center, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of National Constitution Center and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.