Imagine that every person who received a pardon from Gov. Haley Barbour did exactly what the state constitution says and ran a newspaper ad for 30 days before they received the pardon. Then what?

"The notice provision is arguably a technicality," said Matt Steffey, constitutional law professor at Mississippi College. "Pardoning trustys didn't come as a surprise to anyone. It's hard to figure what difference newspaper notices would have had."

Last week, Hood and lawyers for the former trustys, Barbour, and a few people who would have been freed from prison but remain behind bars, made their arguments in front of the en banc panel of the state Supreme Court Feb. 9.

It seems like ancient history now that Hood convinced Hinds County Circuit Court Judge Tomie Green to temporarily block the pardons and commutations of some 200 felons, many violent offenders, to determine if the felons had complied with a constitutional provision to notify the public of their pardon.

Charles Griffin, Barbour's attorney, agreed with Steffey's assessment. "Nothing could have been said or done that would have changed his opinion with respect to these pardons," Griffin told the court.

Steffey believes the governor has the authority to interpret, apply or waive the notice provision in the constitution at his discretion and thinks the law is on the side of the people who received the pardons. "Governor can pardon--for a good reason, a bad reason or no reason at all. Nobody has any legal rights to oppose a pardon," he said. "The pardon exists as a check on the judicial branch. It's a safety valve."

Clemency applications reveal personal stories from people asking for reprieves for crimes committed out of youthful ignorance. Jason Moffitt, a Benton County sheriff's candidate who paid a woman $20 for her absentee vote, requested a pardon so he could use his criminal justice degree to work in law enforcement. "Having no gun rights has prohibited me from seeking employment in the career field that I have been educated for," Moffitt wrote Barbour.

Hood doesn't think the Constitution is open to interpretation on the notice requirement, and has argued for strictly interpreting Section 124, which reads: "[N]o pardon shall be granted until the applicant therefore shall have published for thirty days, in some newspaper in the county where the crime was committed."

And given that the publication requirement has never been raised in the 120 years since the adoption of the current constitution--which includes during Hood's entire tenure since 2004--Steffey said it's hard to interpret Hood's actions as "anything but political."

The judges did not make a ruling last week. Hood said they may rule on the former mansion inmates and the five people who remain in prison, make a determination about any or all of the pardons or send it the case back to Hinds County Circuit Court.

Steffey addressed critics of Judge Green who say she botched the case, which is why the Supreme Court stepped in.

"Not in my opinion," Steffey said when asked if Green had made missteps when the matter was before her. "She addressed a novel, unprecedented case in a rational manner."

Thomas Fornter, a lawyer who represents four of the give governor's mansion inmate workers, said his clients have had difficulty getting jobs because of the negative publicity Pardongate has generated, but they're not angry.

However, he does question whether it's fair to keep punishing people for mistakes they made a long time ago by branding them as criminals.

"A 19 year-old kid steals a car, and at age 40 he's still a convict," he said. "Why do you have to be a convicted felon your whole life?"