In the U.S. Constitution, our nation's founding fathers granted the president power to issue pardons for federal crimes in the event of the rare miscarriage of justice.

Over the years, presidents have largely used this power to promote justice, rather than to undermine it.

But we no longer live in normal times.

Instead, public confidence in the rule of law is further diminished when pardons are granted to political supporters, or at the very least dangled as a potential reward to subvert criminal investigations.

The New York Attorney General's Office has made it clear that a strategically timed pardon could prevent a defendant in violation of state laws from standing trial.

The president does not have the authority to pardon state offenses, but a presidential pardon could still put an end to a state prosecution. Under Article 40 of New York's Criminal Procedure Law, double jeopardy attaches after a defendant has pled guilty or proceeded to trial in federal court.

While the Criminal Procedure Law allows a state prosecution to go forward after a court overturns a federal conviction, there is nothing in our state statute that specifically permits a prosecution after the president nullifies a federal conviction with a pardon.

As such, it is possible for a defendant pardoned by the president for a serious federal crime to avoid prosecution under both federal and New York criminal law, even though the president lacks the authority under the U.S. Constitution to pardon state crimes.

Years ago, our state lawmakers certainly did not intend for this outcome. We must ensure those who violate our laws are held accountable.

Legislation written by state Attorney General Letitia James and sponsored by Sen. Todd Kaminsky and Assemblyman Joseph Lentol is expected to soon go to vote before the Assembly after already passing the Senate earlier this month.

It is crucial during these uncertain times that the duly elected members of the Assembly seize this important opportunity to close the state's double jeopardy loophole. Not only does it advance the interests of justice, but it helps restore the public's faith in the rule of law.

Let's not forget, the double jeopardy law was enacted to protect our citizens from the occasional abuse of governmental authority, as our system of checks and balances was intended. It was certainly not created as a vehicle to circumvent the very system that aims to uphold justice.

We members of this great and noble profession have a moral responsibility to advocate effectively and demand that our elected leaders denounce these types of attacks on the rule of law in clear and unambiguous terms.

Today, our important role as guardians of the system extends beyond just the courtroom or the conference room. It is no longer enough for us to simply talk about the rule of law. Instead, we must preserve the rule of law through our actions to maintain the apolitical administration of justice. Otherwise, there cannot and will not be equality under the law for all.

Michael Miller is president of the New York State Bar Association.