That’s not settled law. From your own link (emphasis mine):
Although the Supreme Court’s opinion stated that a pardon carries “an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it,”[2] this was part of the Court’s dictum for the case.[4] Whether the acceptance of a pardon constitutes an admission of guilt by the recipient is disputed.
It’s not only disputed, it’s logically nonsensical. The Supreme Court has found general pardons to be constitutional. That is, a pardon for any and all crimes that may have committed during a specified period. And if that’s the case, and someone accepts such a pardon, what exactly are they admitting guilt to? Everything? Anything?
Also, pardons have long been used to rectify miscarriages of justice, their wording has indicated that purpose, and pardonees have accepted those pardons.
That’s not settled law. From your own link (emphasis mine):
It’s not only disputed, it’s logically nonsensical. The Supreme Court has found general pardons to be constitutional. That is, a pardon for any and all crimes that may have committed during a specified period. And if that’s the case, and someone accepts such a pardon, what exactly are they admitting guilt to? Everything? Anything?
Also, pardons have long been used to rectify miscarriages of justice, their wording has indicated that purpose, and pardonees have accepted those pardons.