Read on Twitter
There are apparently some doubts about whether the President had the authority to commute Mr. Stone's sentence. And Speaker Pelosi has called for passing a law purporting to restrict his power to do so. This view has apparently already been rejected by the Supreme Court. 1/
The Constitution provides that the President "shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in cases of Impeachment." U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 1. There is beyond this exception no limitation whatever in the text. 2/
The Supreme Court has had occasion to identify the scope of this power. See Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256, 266 (1974). According to the Court, the power "cannot be modified, abridged, or diminished by the Congress." Id. at 266. 3/
The Court did not stop there: "The plain purpose of the broad power conferred by s 2, cl. 1, was to allow *plenary authority* in the President to ‘forgive’ the convicted person in part or entirely. . . ." Id. 4/
The President's power is *plenary.* But the Court made things clearer still: "We therefore hold that the pardoning power is an enumerated power of the Constitution and that its limitations, if any, must be found in the Constitution itself." Id. at 267. 5/
As noted before, there is no textual limitation (except the impeachment exception). This isn't the only case to discuss the pardon power. Others are even clearer: "The power thus conferred is unlimited, with the exception stated. . . . 6/
This power of the President is not subject to legislative control. Congress can neither limit the effect of his pardon, nor exclude from its exercise any class of offenders. The benign prerogative of mercy reposed in him cannot be fettered by any legislative restrictions." 7/
Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333, 380 (1866). This is after a quick search, and I do not claim to be an authority on this question, but these precedents certainly call into question the view that Congress can restrict the President's pardon power. 8/8.
