Congress has the authority to end any war or military action. If by 2028, with Dems-controlled congress and possibly Senat, they won't force US withdrawal, it will then count as a "want to continue it", no matter the justification.
It's not how we've treated pardons in the past but the US has abandoned that as a deciding factor everywhere else. Tell me why that's not a valid interpretation of the Constitution.
What?
Nixon was pardoned without any conviction, or even charges.
"As a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his resignation from the Office of President, Richard Nixon has become liable to possible indictment and trial for offenses against the United States."
"Now, Therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974."
The relevant court precedent on this is over 150 years old: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Garland
"The court also ruled that the president can exercise the pardon power at any time after the commission of the crime..."
Most of the "loopholes" and gaps that the current administration takes advantage of are due to the thinking along the lines of "no one would stoop so low as to operate any other way." There's no way to close all the gaps, but you can certainly make an effort to narrow the number of gaps.
“The President … shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
- Article II, Section 2, Clause 1That would require a Constitutional amendment, and that won't happen. It would require too many states to be willing to give up what amounts to absolute power to nullify their own crimes should their party win the White House, or defend themselves from political retribution by the other party. Remember that was the whole justification for SCOTUS granting the President immunity from all criminal acts while in office - the threat that Biden prosecuting Trump would just lead to an endless cycle of recriminations and prosecutions of the Executive by the other party.
A Constitutional amendment also opens up the possibility of litigating any part of the Constitution, including the Second Amendment. For that reason alone every red state would oppose it on principle.
>This is all very clearly outside the bounds of the intent of the pardon power.
All that matters is the text of the Constitution and intent means whatever the Supreme Court says it means, and they don't seem to have a problem with it.
(We really should require pardons to pass a bipartisan Senate committee where there is no odd-numbered tiebreaker vote and require one defection across the aisle to approve--or something like that)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_trial_of_Donald_Trump... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_impeachment_of_Donald_Tr...
Toward the end of his first term the question was raised whether he could pardon himself.
But yes, preemptive pardons shouldn't be possible, but we'll need an amendment to reform the power at all.