Rep. Alma S. Adams is stepping into the national brawl over presidential pardons, announcing Friday that she has co‑sponsored House Joint Resolution 13, a proposed constitutional amendment that would rein in the president’s clemency powers. The Charlotte Democrat said she joined Representatives Steve Cohen, Hank Johnson and Mike Levin in backing the measure, putting a local lawmaker squarely in the middle of a high‑stakes constitutional fight.
What H.J.Res.13 Would Do
According to Congress.gov, H.J.Res.13, introduced on Jan. 9, 2025, by Rep. Steve Cohen, would bar the president from granting pardons to themselves, relatives up to the third degree and their spouses, current or former administration officials, and paid campaign employees. It would also prohibit pardons for anyone whose offense was motivated by a direct and significant personal or financial interest of the president or carried out at the president’s direction, and it states that “any pardon issued for a corrupt purpose shall be invalid.” Section 2 gives Congress authority to enforce the amendment through appropriate legislation.
Why Adams Is Weighing In
Adams represents North Carolina’s 12th District, which is centered in Charlotte, and serves as co‑chair of the Congressional Black Maternal Health Caucus and the bipartisan HBCU Caucus, per the Office of Rep. Alma Adams. Her move to sign onto H.J.Res.13 lines up with broader ethics and accountability themes that have shaped recent debates in Congress over the scope of executive power.
Constitutional Debate And Legal Questions
Supporters argue the amendment would close some glaring loopholes in the pardon power. Critics and some constitutional scholars counter that phrases such as “corrupt purpose” are vague enough to invite years of legal wrangling over how far the amendment would reach and how courts would judge a president’s motives. That tension has already surfaced in past committee testimony on clemency reform, where witnesses argued over whether a constitutional amendment or more targeted statutory changes would be the better fix, according to a House Judiciary hearing transcript on Congress.gov.
How An Amendment Would Become Law
Even if H.J.Res.13 gains traction on Capitol Hill, the road to actually changing the Constitution is long and steep. A proposed amendment must clear a two‑thirds vote in both the House and Senate, then survive ratification by three‑quarters of the states. The National Constitution Center notes that these supermajority requirements are meant to keep constitutional change rare, which means that, at least in the near term, hearings, debate and committee work are far more likely outcomes than swift ratification.
Adams wrote on X that she was “proud to work with Representatives Cohen, Johnson, and Levin” in supporting the resolution. For now, H.J.Res.13 is poised to serve as a flashpoint in a larger conversation about clemency, accountability and where the limits of presidential power should be drawn as it moves through committee and into the broader congressional debate.
