At a time when the political future seems bleak, Biden pardons his son Hunter. The elderly man understands that the one who delivers his end is still his own flesh and blood. Saying goodbye to the political arena and returning to family, he could not bring himself to sacrifice kin for the greater good; in the face of ethics and justice, he ultimately chose familial ties.
Regarding the presidential pardon power granted by the Constitution, Hamilton and Madison, who strongly advocated for power checks, may not have anticipated that the boundaries of all laws under a "free government" would be infinitely expanded in the face of this "pardon power," from pardoning political allies to family members, and it could even rewrite the myth of "self-pardoning" from the era of monarchic despotism.
In fact, the representatives at the 1787 Constitutional Convention were very rational and rigorous about the boundaries of power; they held a pessimistic view of human nature, especially believing that "once a person gains political power, their capacity for wrongdoing may be significant." Hamilton stated, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."
He made two points: first, that government is necessary; second, that government power must be constrained. Both assertions are based on the same premise: "men are not angels"—neither ordinary people nor rulers. Government is necessary, but government power must be constrained, thus power must be checked.
From the records of the Constitutional Convention, it is clear that they were always vigilant about political power, believing that politicians and officials could be unreliable. Montesquieu once said, "Anyone who has power is prone to abuse it; this is an ancient and unchanging truth. Those in power will use their power until they encounter a boundary." Many representatives at the Constitutional Convention were followers of Montesquieu; they believed that when political power is not effectively constrained, those who wield it could become "oppressors" or "tyrants." For those in power, the famous principle articulated by Hamilton and Madison is that power must be checked by power, and ambition must be countered by ambition. Therefore, only the separation and balance of political powers can ensure that power is not abused, which means the mutual independence and restraint of legislative, executive, and judicial powers.
The 1787 U.S. Constitution created a federal system and a model of separation of powers, showcasing a combination of the Founding Fathers' careful thought and bold innovation. However, systems always have loopholes and become outdated; the pardon power granted to the president has been exploited by generations of American presidents in the face of political allies and familial ties.
Just as this time, Trump stated that Biden's pardon of Hunter is "an abuse of justice." In fact, Trump himself had done the same during his tenure, pardoning his son-in-law's family member Charles Kushner. This time, Trump, if elected again, even nominated this "in-law" to serve as the U.S. ambassador to France, allowing a "criminal" who escaped punishment to rise in the political arena. In recent years, U.S. presidents have repeatedly used this power to pardon relatives or political allies, leading people to question whether the pardon system has devolved from a public tool that can promote social progress into a "power black hole" used by those in power to satisfy personal desires. This also proves once again that those in power will use power until they encounter a boundary. When power is pushed to its limits, a crisis of trust in political justice arises, and the "social contract" subsequently breaks down.
Rousseau believed that the legitimacy of state power comes from the trust of citizens; the president's pardon power was originally intended to correct the flaws in the judicial system. However, when those in power use the pardon power to handle personal matters, it inevitably leads the public to question the fairness of the rule of law. Can the public still believe that this is a "rule of law game" where "everyone is equal"?
Shang Yang from the pre-Qin period said it well: "The prince is guilty and should be punished equally with the common people." Even if nobles violate the law, they should be punished just like ordinary citizens. This is what the "Zuo Zhuan" refers to as "sacrificing kin for justice," where those in power maintain justice and do not show favoritism to criminal relatives, ensuring they receive the punishment they deserve. Han Feizi elaborated further: "The law does not favor the rich, and the rope does not bend. Where the law is applied, the wise cannot evade it, and the brave do not dare to contest it. Punishments do not spare ministers, and rewards do not neglect commoners." Regardless of wealth or status, rewards and punishments are clear, and everyone is equal before the law. Unfortunately, in ancient times, the legalist laws in China were essentially the "king's laws," referred to as "royal law," and there would always be those who "monopolize the law" and are not bound by it. Exempting relatives from punishment seems more aligned with the traditional Confucian idea of "protecting one's kin," where direct relatives can be appropriately sheltered and not pursued for legal accountability. Thus, "the love of kin" is based on the way of heaven, while "protecting one's kin" is a form of love and tolerance for human relationships. Today, Biden can pardon his son, and tomorrow Trump might pardon himself; the "free government" has become "presidential freedom." Biden is a good father, but he may not necessarily be a good president.