The United States Constitution empowers the executive branch, particularly the President of the United States, to issue pardons for people previously convicted of crimes. The Michigan Constitution empowers Michigan's governor to do the same. This power also extends to commutations of sentences, which is basically a reduction of sentence, usually to time served.
I recently wrote about the abuse or mockery of this power when the Michigan governor (and the US President, for that matter) "pardons" turkeys for Thanksgiving. Nothing in either Constitution empowers them to pardon livestock or poultry. Yeah, I get it. It's just a "cute" thing they do. But from this side of the fence, it doesn't feel so cute.
Now, the media is reporting that President Biden is considering "preemptively" pardoning several people before he leaves office. I'm no lawyer, but from what I've read in the Constitution, and in case law, there is no such Constitutional power that authorizes Presidents or Governors to preemptively pardon anyone.
The dictionary definition for "pardon" is: excuse of an offense without penalty; esp.: an official release from legal punishment. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2004).
Technically, the dictionary definition does not define whether or not a person must first be convicted of such offense; however, I'm quite certain that the Founding Fathers intended this executive power to be used to release a person from punishment AFTER a conviction. That conviction does not have to be in a court of law. It can also occur in a legislative body, like the Senate.
I'm really curious to see what the Constitutional experts have to say about "preemptive pardons." But Constitutional legality aside, this extension of executive power (and I would argue abuse of power) is just another example of the burgeoning powers of the executive branch. Rather than operating within the checks and balances implemented by the Founding Fathers, recent presidents (from both parties) have issued executive orders for agendas they know won't be passed by the House and Senate. Sounds like another "preemptive" practice to me.
When those in power abuse their authority, protect themselves and others around them from accountability, and flout established Constitutional laws and principles, it sends a message to the people: There are two tiers of justice--one for the common people, and one for those with power, influence, and wealth. It de-legitimizes our judicial process when people with power can be shielded from accountability for their actions.
As someone rightfully paying the price for the harms I've caused others, it disgusts me when justice only applies to the unconnected masses. When we lose the ability as a people to hold people in power accountable for their actions, there's no end to what they can do. And that's a scary thought.