I'm new at this, so please don't be too hard on me! I've been frequenting TPM for a while, but I'm new at creating my own blog posts and have been cautiously observing from a distance. :)

I thought Josh's question of President Bush's revocation of the Isaac Toussie's pardon was an interesting one, so I decided to do some digging. I'm no lawyer, but I do have a pro se appeal under my belt that was subsequently labeled a "wake-up call" in my state by the state bar, so I feel I'm as qualified as anyone else to do a little investigating where law is concerned.

P.S. Ruckman, who is currently writing a book on pardons, addressed this very issue on his blog. He mentions two pardons that were revoked by incoming President Grant after being granted by outgoing President Johnson. Apparently the pardons got caught up in transit, and Grant intervened prior to the actual delivery. After being challenged in court, the relevant portion of the ruling is as follows:

If the president can arrest the mission of the messenger went the messenger has departed but ten feet from the door of the presidential mansion, he can arrest such mission at any time before the messenger delivers the pardon to the warden of the prison. 

In Christian Jensen's book The Pardoning Power in the United States, it is similarly noted that the pardon has to be physically delivered in order to be considered granted and legally binding. He notes that even a pardon that was signed and sealed but not physically delivered was not legally binding.

T.J. Halstead, a legislative attorney, noted in a 2006 Report for Congress that pardons must be physically delivered before they are considered binding: 

A pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the laws, which exempts the individual, on whom it is bestowed, from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed. It is the private, though official act of the executive magistrate, delivered to the individual for whose benefit it is intended. The Court further declared: "A pardon is a deed, to the validity of which delivery is essential, and delivery is not complete without acceptance."

Looking at the situation logically, it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense if presidents were granted the sweeping authority to grant pardons but held to some stringent inability to go back on their word before the documentation was complete. History and precedent shows that unless an individual has a tangible piece of paper in his hand that he has accepted and that verifies he has been pardoned, he has nothing.

While I can appreciate Josh's suggestion that, in an era of technology, the mass media announcement alone may be sufficient, I don't believe it will hold water in court. The fact that Bush rescinded his announcement while still holding executive power and before the actual documentation was received by Toussie should be sufficient to deny his pardon by any future court that would hear the matter.   

I certainly welcome any opposing views and documentation that suggest otherwise.