IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 132 

Expressing the sense of Congress that the President does not have the 

authority under the Constitution to grant himself reprieve or pardon 

for offenses against the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 26, 2018 

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California (for herself, Ms. BASS, Mr. JOHNSON of 

Georgia, Mr. MEEKS, Ms. CLARKE of New York, Mr. CARSON of Indiana, 

Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. COHEN, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. 

SERRANO, and Ms. LEE) submitted the following concurrent resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress that the President does 

not have the authority under the Constitution to grant 

himself reprieve or pardon for offenses against the 

United States. 

Whereas while article II, section 2 of the Constitution vests 

in the President the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, there is an 

overriding fundamental common law rule, nemo iudex in 

causa sua, which holds that no one may be a judge in 

his own case; 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HCON 132 IH 

Whereas the Constitution and laws of the United States, and 

any actions pursuant thereto, must adhere to fundamental and common sense principles of law; 

Whereas one of the Framers of the Constitution, James 

Madison, declared in the 10th essay of the Federalist Papers that ‘‘[n]o man is allowed to be a judge in his own 

cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity’’; 

Whereas another Framer of the Constitution, Alexander 

Hamilton, wrote in the 74th essay of the Federalist Papers that the pardon power exists as a matter of ‘‘humanity and good policy’’, and that the President must reflect on ‘‘the fate of a fellow-creature depended on his 

sole fiat’’, which clearly suggests that the President is the 

grantor of pardons to another, and exercises this power 

to the benefit of another and not to the benefit of himself; 

Whereas understanding the fundamental rules of law, no 

President in the history of the United States has ever attempted to pardon himself; 

Whereas the executive branch, through the Department of 

Justice Office of Legal Counsel, itself opined in an August 5, 1974, legal opinion that the Executive, the President, cannot pardon himself; 

Whereas when faced with the prospect of criminal prosecution, President Richard Nixon appeared to acknowledge 

the limitations of the President’s pardon power as expressed in the August 5, 1974, Department of Justice 

Office of Legal Counsel memorandum when he resigned 

without attempting to act contrary to the memorandum; 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HCON 132 IH 

Whereas if a President were to pardon himself, such an action would directly and inherently violate the common 

law, as well as the President’s duty under article II, section 3 of the Constitution to take care that the laws be 

faithfully executed; 

Whereas no reasonable rationale exist for the Framers of the 

Constitution to have intended to bestow upon the President the power to exempt himself from accountability to 

the law; and 

Whereas the rule of law is meaningless if any person or entity, including the President, is beyond the law’s reach: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that the 

3 President does not have the authority under the Constitu4 tion to grant himself reprieve or pardon for offenses 

5 against the United States. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS