As the political future faded away, Biden pardoned his son Hunter. The elderly man understands that the one who sends him off must be his own flesh and blood. Saying goodbye to the political arena and returning to family, he could not bring himself to sacrifice his kin for the sake of righteousness; 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 might even rewrite the myth of "self-pardoning" during the era of human monarchic despotism.
In fact, the representatives at the 1787 Constitutional Convention were very rational and rigorous in their approach to the boundaries of power. They held a pessimistic view of human nature, especially believing that "the energy for a person to do bad things after gaining political power can be substantial." 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 conveyed two meanings: first, that government is necessary; and second, that government power must be constrained. Both assertions are based on the same premise: "men are not angels"—neither ordinary people nor rulers are. Government is necessary, but government power must be constrained, thus power must be checked.
From the records of the Constitutional Convention, it is evident that they were always vigilant about political power, believing that politicians and officials might 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 it until they encounter boundaries." Many representatives at the Constitutional Convention were followers of Montesquieu, believing that when political power is not effectively restrained, those who wield it may become "oppressors" or "tyrants." For those in power, the famous principle articulated by Hamilton and Madison is: power must be checked by power, and ambition must be countered by ambition. Therefore, only the separation and balance of political power can ensure it 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' cautious thinking 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 like 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, upon winning again, even nominated this "in-law" to serve as the U.S. ambassador to France, allowing a "criminal" who escaped punishment to flourish in his career. 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 could promote social progress into a "power black hole" for those in power to satisfy their private desires. This further proves that those in power will use power until they encounter boundaries. 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, but 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 "law game of equality"?
Shang Yang from the pre-Qin period said it well: "Princes and commoners are equally guilty when they break the law." Even if nobles violate the law, they should be punished just like ordinary people. This is what the "Zuo Zhuan" refers to as "sacrificing kin for righteousness," where those in power uphold 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. Those to whom the law is applied cannot evade it, and the brave dare not contest it. Punishments do not spare ministers, and rewards do not overlook commoners." Regardless of wealth or status, rewards and punishments are clear, and everyone is equal before the law. Unfortunately, in ancient times, the law of the Legalists in China was essentially the "law of the king," referred to as "royal law," and there would always be those who "solely enforce the law" without being bound by it. Exempting relatives from punishment seems more aligned with the traditional Confucian idea of "protecting kin," where direct relatives can be appropriately sheltered and not pursued for legal violations, thus "the love of kin" is based on the way of heaven, while "protecting kin" is an expression of love and tolerance for human relationships. Today, Biden can pardon his son, and tomorrow Trump might be able to pardon himself; the "free government" has become "presidential freedom." Biden is a good father, but he may not necessarily be a good president.