This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
I've removed the following paragraph from the end of the article, since its relevance seems to be a matter of Wikipedia:Synthesis opinion of a Wikipedia editor in 2007, unsupported by a plain reading of the individual parts:
The status of the Burdick decision is in question[according to whom?] as a result of the decision of President Clinton to grant a full and unconditional pardon to Henry Ossian Flipper. Flipper, the first African-American graduate of the United States Military Academy, could not accept a pardon, as he had been dead for over 50 years. In addition, the pardon was considered[by whom?] to be an act that cleared his good name. It did not constitute an admission of guilt. Flipper's clemency application also noted the Supreme Court made it clear, in 1974, that the "requirement of consent was a legal fiction at best."
American officials often issue politically-symbolic edicts that are have no legal application in real life; pardoning a person, who is long dead and whose conviction for treason is clearly not inherited, seems like an obvious example to me, absent any actual evidence of any legal ruling. The claim that Clinton's Flipper pardon had any legal effect on anything at all, let alone bringing an established court ruling like Burdick v. United States into question, appears to be the Wikipedia editor's own assumption. The quotes from Schick v. Reed (419 U.S. 256 (1974)) appears to be taken out of context and passed through a petition, which is, inherently, intended to be a highly biased work of advocacy. There is also no evidence in the paragraph that the president's will, let alone a court precedent, was the result of any of this when the posthumous pardon was issued. --Closeapple (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)