Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This resolution proposes a change to the U.S. Constitution that would limit who the President may pardon. It would add a new constitutional article listing specific people and situations where pardons are prohibited and says Congress can pass laws to enforce it. It does not itself change the Constitution until the amendment process is completed by the states.
As a proposed constitutional amendment, it must be approved by two-thirds of both the House and the Senate and is not sent to the President; after congressional approval it must be ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states to become part of the Constitution.
This joint resolution proposes a Constitutional amendment that would limit the President’s pardon and reprieve powers.
It prohibits pardons for the President themself, certain relatives and spouses, current or former administration members, paid campaign staff, persons/entities benefiting from the foregoing, and persons acting at the President’s direction or in coordination with the President.
Any pardon issued for a corrupt purpose would be invalid.
Constitutional amendments that restrict executive power are rare and require wide bipartisan and state-level consensus; this text is politically sensitive and legally contestable.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill functions as a concise constitutional amendment that clearly identifies categories of pardons to be prohibited and delegates enforcement to Congress; it is strong on high-level scope but limited in definitional precision and operational detail.
Liberals emphasize accountability and preventing self-dealing pardons.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals emphasize accountability and preventing self-dealing pardons.
Generally supportive: views the amendment as a needed check on potential abuse of clemency power and presidential self-interested pardons.
Sees it as strengthening accountability and the rule of law, while wanting safeguards to preserve legitimate clemency for non-prohibited persons.
Cautiously favorable to limiting outright self-pardons and clear conflicts, but concerned about constitutional change and ambiguous language.
Would favor clearer definitions and guardrails to avoid unintended consequences and preserve executive clemency for legitimate cases.
Likely opposed: views the amendment as an intrusion on executive clemency and separation of powers.
While some conservatives oppose self-pardons, most will see broad restrictions and congressional enforcement as federal overreach and politically motivated.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Constitutional amendments that restrict executive power are rare and require wide bipartisan and state-level consensus; this text is politically sensitive and legally contestable.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals emphasize accountability and preventing self-dealing pardons.
Constitutional amendments that restrict executive power are rare and require wide bipartisan and state-level consensus; this text is politi…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill functions as a concise constitutional amendment that clearly identifies categories of pardons to be prohibited and delegates enforcement to Congress; it is strong on…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.