Pardon Too Close to Home? Morality vs. Legality in Governance


The recent pardon of Hunter Biden by President Joe Biden has reignited a perennial debate in democratic governance: where should the line between legality and morality be drawn? While the president’s use of the pardon power is constitutionally unassailable, its application in this instance has raised eyebrows, even among staunch defenders of the administration.  

Presidential pardons are deeply rooted in American tradition, granting leaders the ability to correct injustices or extend mercy. Yet, the act of a sitting president pardoning his own son—especially in a case laden with political and ethical implications—risks undermining public trust. Even if no laws were broken, such an action inevitably invites accusations of favoritism and a conflict of interest.  

The framers of the U.S. Constitution granted the pardon power with the expectation it would be wielded judiciously, not as a tool for shielding close associates or family members from accountability. History has shown that controversial pardons can severely damage public perception of the presidency. From Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon to Bill Clinton’s last-minute pardon of financier Marc Rich, these decisions often spark outrage because they seem to prioritize political convenience or personal loyalty over justice. Other notable examples of presidential pardons that skirted conflict of interest breach are 

The Iran-Contra Affair Pardons: President George H.W. Bush's pardon of six individuals involved in the Iran-Contra affair in 1992 was criticized due to Bush's own involvement in the scandal as Vice President. 

The Pardon of Joe Arpaio: President Donald Trump's pardon of former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio in 2017 was seen as controversial due to Arpaio's support for Trump's presidential campaign and Trump's own statements praising Arpaio's actions. 

The Pardon of Rod Blagojevich: President Trump's pardon of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich in 2020 raised questions due to Blagojevich's appearance on Trump's reality TV show "The Celebrity Apprentice" and Trump's own comments praising Blagojevich's behavior. 

In Hunter Biden’s case, the optics are particularly damning. The pardon covers both known and potentially unknown crimes—a broad and sweeping gesture that shields him from further scrutiny. Critics argue this sets a dangerous precedent, potentially inviting future abuses of executive clemency for personal gain.  

The issue at hand is not strictly about legality but about the moral obligations of those in power. Public servants are expected to uphold not just the letter of the law but its spirit, demonstrating fairness and impartiality in their decisions. When the actions of a leader appear to favor their inner circle, it erodes faith in the very institutions they are meant to serve.  

Supporters of the president may argue that he acted out of compassion for his son, who has been the subject of relentless media and political attacks. They might point to the extraordinary pressures faced by families of public figures, suggesting the pardon is an attempt to bring closure to a deeply personal matter. However, the presidency is not a private office; its actions carry profound public consequences.  

The Hunter Biden pardon thus raises critical questions about the balance between personal loyalty and public accountability. Should a president’s familial ties exempt them from scrutiny, or does such an act betray the higher moral standards expected of public officials? More broadly, it challenges us to consider whether the pardon power itself requires reform to prevent potential abuses.  

Ultimately, governance in a democracy rests not just on legal frameworks but on moral authority. While the president may have adhered to the Constitution, the moral calculus is far less clear. Trust in public institutions hinges on their leaders demonstrating integrity and impartiality. When those values appear compromised, even by legal means, the damage to democracy is profound.  

This incident should serve as a wake-up call, not just for the current administration but for all who hold or aspire to public office. The lesson is simple yet vital: legality is the floor, not the ceiling, of ethical governance.

If it were you, what would you do? Would you pardon your son or daughter? If I were to grant pardon to my son as president, I would find people unjustly jailed and pardon them just for the sake of equity and equality. 




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CALLING FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM IS NOT ANTI-IMMIGRANT

Image
In Canada today, we are witnessing a growing narrative that blames the increasing population for various social problems—rising housing costs, overburdened healthcare, and crumbling infrastructure. What’s more troubling is the subtle suggestion that these issues are the fault of immigrants, without outright saying so. This narrative has roots in long-standing tactics that rile people up against newcomers while avoiding direct confrontation with the values of diversity and inclusion that Canada upholds. While this perspective may resonate with some, it distorts the reality of what many Canadians are asking for when they call for immigration reform. It is a dangerous oversimplification to conflate critiques of the immigration system with anti-immigrant sentiment. The fact is, immigration has been—and continues to be—an essential driver of Canada's economic and social development. Our country’s prosperity has been significantly shaped by the talents, labor, and innovation that immigra...
Read more

Safe Consumption Sites and The War on Drugs: A Misguided Battle or Necessary Evil?

Image
  The War on Drugs, initiated in the United States and later adopted by countries like Canada, has been a costly and contentious endeavor. With billions of dollars spent, lives lost, and communities devastated, many are questioning the true efficacy and moral grounding of this war. The juxtaposition between the drug dealers’ methods during the crack epidemic and the modern approach of harm reduction strategies, such as safe consumption sites, raises significant questions about the rationale behind this prolonged conflict. During the crack epidemic of the 1980s and 1990s, drug dealers were portrayed as ruthless criminals, solely motivated by profit. However, a closer examination reveals a more complex dynamic. These dealers were indeed motivated by profit, but this motivation led to practices that, albeit unintentionally, mirrored modern harm reduction strategies. For instance, dealers had a vested interest in keeping their customers alive. Overdoses were bad for business—dead custo...
Read more

Is the State Nurturing Irresponsibility to Justify Social Spending?

Image
 In our society, actions have consequences, and it's a fundamental principle that has long been a pillar of social order. When people take responsibility for their actions, they contribute to a more functional community. However, there is an unsettling trend in which the state seems to be actively minimizing the consequences of individuals' decisions, raising questions about the role of social spending and the motives behind it. We understand that it is part of a humane society to ensure that those who make mistakes, especially those who are vulnerable, have a safety net to fall back on. We also recognize that a society cannot thrive if it fails to provide opportunities for individuals to rehabilitate and re-enter the workforce or community life. However, the balance between compassionate support and encouraging accountability is delicate. When the balance tips too far towards removing consequences, the outcome can foster irresponsibility. One cannot help but notice the growing...
Read more