3 ms·

Is someone with a presidential pardon still considered a felon? I know the pardon does not erase the conviction, but since a pardon seems to erase the most sign

Is someone with a presidential pardon still considered a felon? I know the pardon does not erase the conviction, but since a pardon seems to erase the most significant consequences, does it erase all consequences?

SEJeff 9y ago
A pardon erases prison time, it does not erase any fines resulting from said crime, and also is admitting guilt to the crime[1]. One of the biggest things a pardon does as a result of that (like a guilty plea does as well) is open you up to civil suits. Also, accepting a pardon prevents you from pleading the 5th on any further or follow up charges related to said crime. It is a pretty slippery slope actually. Your question is an interesting one, but one better suited for a Constitutional law scholar such as Professor Lawrence Tribe (runs the constitutional law program at Harvard). [1] Burdick vs United States: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3928528117882105076 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=392852811788210...
- paulddraper 9y ago
  That is the usual interpretation of that case, but not the only one. https://medium.com/@brendanlilly/are-presidential-pardons-an-admission-of-guilt-d931ce3223f4 https://medium.com/@brendanlilly/are-presidential-pardons-an...
pvg 9y ago
Manning was not pardoned. But that's all rather moot. People have run for office from prison (and won).
- craftyguy 9y ago
  Thank you for pointing that out. It does look like Obama commuted her sentence, and did not pardon her. I guess I had either heard or remembered incorrectly.
  - extra88 9y ago
    Even a pardon doesn’t remove the conviction. Trump pardoned Arpaio and Arpaio tried to have the conviction vacated as well but the judge refused.
    - craftyguy 9y ago
      My original question wasn't about the actual conviction, but rather about all penalties typically associated with the conviction. I've found several other sources online, though I don't know how credible because IANAL, that suggest a pardon could restore rights typically lost to felons, like the right to vote.
      - pvg 9y ago
        Why do you think the right to vote is related to the ability to run for federal office? They don't appear to be. I'm no sort of legal expert myself but it seems states have significant say in who gets to vote - a thread that runs through the entirety of US history, is the subject of several constitutional amendments and continues to this day. The qualifications to run for Congress, on the other hand, are explicitly spelled out in the original document. It's not clear to me anything other than a federal law can add any additional restrictions like, say, the Hatch Act does.
        tptacek 9y ago
        Can federal law add restrictions beyond those in the Constitution for eligibility to Congress? I didn't think it could.
        pvg 9y ago
        I threw this in mostly as a hedge so that someone who knows better doesn't slap me around with the Hatch act. It seems like the converse is true, though, states don't get to define qualifications - U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) "Second, even if the States possessed some original power in this area, it must be concluded that the Framers intended the Constitution to be the exclusive source of qualifications for Members of Congress, and that the Framers thereby "divested" States of any power to add qualifications."

SEJeff 9y ago

A pardon erases prison time, it does not erase any fines resulting from said crime, and also is admitting guilt to the crime[1]. One of the biggest things a pardon does as a result of that (like a guilty plea does as well) is open you up to civil suits. Also, accepting a pardon prevents you from pleading the 5th on any further or follow up charges related to said crime. It is a pretty slippery slope actually. Your question is an interesting one, but one better suited for a Constitutional law scholar such as Professor Lawrence Tribe (runs the constitutional law program at Harvard). [1] Burdick vs United States: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3928528117882105076 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=392852811788210...

paulddraper 9y ago
That is the usual interpretation of that case, but not the only one. https://medium.com/@brendanlilly/are-presidential-pardons-an-admission-of-guilt-d931ce3223f4 https://medium.com/@brendanlilly/are-presidential-pardons-an...

pvg 9y ago

Manning was not pardoned. But that's all rather moot. People have run for office from prison (and won).

craftyguy 9y ago
Thank you for pointing that out. It does look like Obama commuted her sentence, and did not pardon her. I guess I had either heard or remembered incorrectly.
- extra88 9y ago
  Even a pardon doesn’t remove the conviction. Trump pardoned Arpaio and Arpaio tried to have the conviction vacated as well but the judge refused.
  - craftyguy 9y ago
    My original question wasn't about the actual conviction, but rather about all penalties typically associated with the conviction. I've found several other sources online, though I don't know how credible because IANAL, that suggest a pardon could restore rights typically lost to felons, like the right to vote.
    - pvg 9y ago
      Why do you think the right to vote is related to the ability to run for federal office? They don't appear to be. I'm no sort of legal expert myself but it seems states have significant say in who gets to vote - a thread that runs through the entirety of US history, is the subject of several constitutional amendments and continues to this day. The qualifications to run for Congress, on the other hand, are explicitly spelled out in the original document. It's not clear to me anything other than a federal law can add any additional restrictions like, say, the Hatch Act does.
      - tptacek 9y ago
        Can federal law add restrictions beyond those in the Constitution for eligibility to Congress? I didn't think it could.
        pvg 9y ago
        I threw this in mostly as a hedge so that someone who knows better doesn't slap me around with the Hatch act. It seems like the converse is true, though, states don't get to define qualifications - U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) "Second, even if the States possessed some original power in this area, it must be concluded that the Framers intended the Constitution to be the exclusive source of qualifications for Members of Congress, and that the Framers thereby "divested" States of any power to add qualifications."