>This is a good chance to remind people that laws can be changed. Including how pardons work by allowing Congress to override a pardon.
That 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.