A question of Constitutional Law

[Rebel5soul]

That's the question. Funnily enough, it's always been the question.

The answer is that the court does. The reality is that some nutball with a grudge brings an indictment and charges, the President moves for dismissal on the basis of immunity, and the question for those particular charges/acts gets answered after every media talking head tries to convince everyone that political affiliation will be the basis for the decision regardless of which way it goes.

Then the appellate courts get a go at it. Then the Supremes have their turn.

And we the people get to watch it all on the news and call our neighbors nasty names because of it.

Back to traversing into the Banana Republic territory. That is precisely what the court was trying to avoid with their most recent decision.

 

[HisArpy]

Back to traversing into the Banana Republic territory. That is precisely what the court was trying to avoid with their most recent decision.

Not at all. Read the decision for yourself instead of summaries and you'll see that they stood by the historical immunity for Heads of State as well as the Constitution in fashioning their decision. Yet nothing in history or law prohibits a challenge to the Head of State's actions as being ex-officiate. We have loads of precedent, recent precedent at that, whereby people sue the government claiming that the acts of the government officials are outside their authority. Most of those are civil, but not all.

In each and every one of those cases, the limits on "official acts" are reviewed and decided. If the matter is within the boundaries of "official acts" then the claims made are rejected. If they're outside the boundaries, then the claims get someone tossed into the clink. (Re; Rod Blagojevich's impeachment & removal and ultimate conviction for corruption in office.)

 

[dawnonyou]

A President CANNOT grant a pardon in cases of impeachment. This is literally written in the Constitution.

The basis for this is that if a President could grant such a pardon, he could pardon himself and avoid impeachment altogether. Removal is not required.

Self pardoning would be subject to the concept that if a President could pardon himself he could avoid impeachment prior to impeachment proceedings being initiated. Since this is one of the enumerated qualifiers, a self pardon isn't allowed because any self pardon would be an admission of criminal acts outside the scope of the official duties of the President and therefore subject to impeachment.

That makes sense.

 

[dawnonyou]

Not at all. Read the decision for yourself instead of summaries and you'll see that they stood by the historical immunity for Heads of State as well as the Constitution in fashioning their decision. Yet nothing in history or law prohibits a challenge to the Head of State's actions as being ex-officiate. We have loads of precedent, recent precedent at that, whereby people sue the government claiming that the acts of the government officials are outside their authority. Most of those are civil, but not all.

In each and every one of those cases, the limits on "official acts" are reviewed and decided. If the matter is within the boundaries of "official acts" then the claims made are rejected. If they're outside the boundaries, then the claims get someone tossed into the clink. (Re; Rod Blagojevich's impeachment & removal and ultimate conviction for corruption in office.)

That makes sense too.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

The majority of SCOTUS justices rely heavily on the text of Constitution. It’s pretty straightforward on pardons.

 

[ll74]

A President CANNOT grant a pardon in cases of impeachment. This is literally written in the Constitution.

The basis for this is that if a President could grant such a pardon, he could pardon himself and avoid impeachment altogether. Removal is not required.

Self pardoning would be subject to the concept that if a President could pardon himself he could avoid impeachment prior to impeachment proceedings being initiated. Since this is one of the enumerated qualifiers, a self pardon isn't allowed because any self pardon would be an admission of criminal acts outside the scope of the official duties of the President and therefore subject to impeachment.

I actually read that wrong the first time. I get what you're saying here..

 

[SimonDoom]

I put the specific question in RED thinking that would help. So your understanding is that a POTUS could "get away with murder." So so could anyone that he pardoned. So could he give a blanket pardons to all murderers in the US prison system? Could he give pardons to any and all rapists? Could he give pardons to himself for treason and and for his comrades?

Let's step back a bit.

First of all, the pardon power only applies to federal crimes--convictions under federal law. The president has no power to pardon people of convictions under state laws. So, no, the president cannot pardon all rapists and murderers.

The pardon power doesn't extend to impeachment, because impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. The pardon power only applies to criminal proceedings. One cannot pardon a civil judgment.

The language of the pardon power is vague and broad, so it ultimately leaves it to the courts to determine the scope of the power. But based on the language, it appears there is no limit as to the reason or grounds for the president's exercise of the power.

It's not clear if the president can pardon himself. The text of the Constitution does not address the issue. It doesn't make a lot of sense to let the president pardon himself, but some people may believe that it's a reasonable interpretation of the text of the Constitution because it fails explicitly to address the issue.

 

[Rebel5soul]

Not at all. Read the decision for yourself instead of summaries and you'll see that they stood by the historical immunity for Heads of State as well as the Constitution in fashioning their decision. Yet nothing in history or law prohibits a challenge to the Head of State's actions as being ex-officiate. We have loads of precedent, recent precedent at that, whereby people sue the government claiming that the acts of the government officials are outside their authority. Most of those are civil, but not all.

In each and every one of those cases, the limits on "official acts" are reviewed and decided. If the matter is within the boundaries of "official acts" then the claims made are rejected. If they're outside the boundaries, then the claims get someone tossed into the clink. (Re; Rod Blagojevich's impeachment & removal and ultimate conviction for corruption in office.)

Of course there have always been legal challenges to the act(s). But we're discussing criminal here.

 

[Rightguide]

I don't profess to be an expert on Constitutional Law. So, I am not sure what the answer to my question might be. If you have a good understanding of USA Constitutional Law maybe you can shed light on this. My question is about presidential pardons. Is the INTENT of the provision to allow a criminal POTUS and his partners in crime to get away with anything and everything? It seems that the SCOTUS just made it clear that a POTUS could be charged with certain crimes even though it would be a narrow band of charges. So, for example, what if after a corrupt POTUS left office and a injustice department replaced a corrupt justice department and they uncovered many serious crimes? For instance, what if they could prove in court that the election for the corrupt president that had passed out pardons for himself, his family and crime buddies, had in fact never legally won the election in the first place? What if it was found that such a POTUS was guilty of treason? Would Constitutional Law require that his powers of pardon were intact? Or could all the pardons be revoked?

"and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

This is all the Constitution says about the pardon power of the Executive. You might research these cases that do bear on the parts of the Padon power, Biddle v Perovich (1827), Ex Parte garland (1867). According to United States v Klein (1871) Congress cannot limit the President's authority to grant amnesties or pardons, but it can expand or grant amnesties or further amnesties itself. In Schick v Reed Chief Justice Warren Burger seemed to limit the court's restraint to pardons under "conditions that do not offend the Constitution." Aside from the legal core belief that a man should not be a judge in his own case, the Constitutions text in Article II Section LL does not seem to limit a President from pardoning himself. The act of doing so would seem to impermissible under existing traditions of U.S. law and jurisprudence. You can Google these decisions and read them for yourself and draw your own conclusions. But in the event of a self pardon the SCOTUS has not fully explored and ruled on the facts of that issue.

 

[Rightguide]

Let's step back a bit.

First of all, the pardon power only applies to federal crimes--convictions under federal law. The president has no power to pardon people of convictions under state laws. So, no, the president cannot pardon all rapists and murderers.

The pardon power doesn't extend to impeachment, because impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. The pardon power only applies to criminal proceedings. One cannot pardon a civil judgment.

The language of the pardon power is vague and broad, so it ultimately leaves it to the courts to determine the scope of the power. But based on the language, it appears there is no limit as to the reason or grounds for the president's exercise of the power.

It's not clear if the president can pardon himself. The text of the Constitution does not address the issue. It doesn't make a lot of sense to let the president pardon himself, but some people may believe that it's a reasonable interpretation of the text of the Constitution because it fails explicitly to address the issue.

I think if we are to assume the President has the right to pardon himself, then we have to throw out the core legal belief that a man cannot be the judge in his own case.

 

[Rebel5soul]

I think if we are to assume the President has the right to pardon himself, then we have to throw out the core legal belief that a man cannot be the judge in his own case.

That one would be subject to a test I suspect.

 

[Rightguide]

That one would be subject to a test I suspect.

As I mentioned above there have been SCOTUS opinions that implicate the pardon power but there haven't been any that really examine a President's pardoning of himself against the widely held principles of American law, such as a man not being a judge in his own case, "the United States is a nation of laws, not men." "the rule of law is supreme," "The President is not above the law." All of these seem to be violated by that singular act of Presidential power. One of the purposes of the pardon power was the belief that in certain cases justice should be tempered with mercy but I don't think it was contemplated to be a method of obstructing justice before the fact. In the case of impeachment if a President has been impeached for felonious behavior, the purpose is to remove him from office so that he can be properly prosecuted for his felonious behavior and after conviction he might then be a candidate for pardon from another President, but not himself prior to justice being served.

 

[SimonDoom]

I think if we are to assume the President has the right to pardon himself, then we have to throw out the core legal belief that a man cannot be the judge in his own case.

I agree that this is what SHOULD be the right answer, but I don't know how the Supreme Court would rule.

 

[Rightguide]

I agree that this is what SHOULD be the right answer, but I don't know how the Supreme Court would rule.

Nor do I, but it's hard to beat logic.

 

[Rebel5soul]

As I mentioned above there have been SCOTUS opinions that implicate the pardon power but there haven't been any that really examine a President's pardoning of himself against the widely held principles of American law, such as a man not being a judge in his own case, "the United States is a nation of laws, not men." "the rule of law is supreme," "The President is not above the law." All of these seem to be violated by that singular act of Presidential power. One of the purposes of the pardon power was the belief that in certain cases justice should be tempered with mercy but I don't think it was contemplated to be a method of obstructing justice before the fact. In the case of impeachment if a President has been impeached for felonious behavior, the purpose is to remove him from office so that he can be properly prosecuted for his felonious behavior and after conviction he might then be a candidate for pardon from another President, but not himself prior to justice being served.

I understand all that but it's going to be tested.

 

[ll74]

I understand all that but it's going to be tested.

Who is going to test it and why?

 

[Rightguide]

I understand all that but it's going to be tested.

I agree, at some point in the future.

 

[Politruk]

Is the INTENT of the provision to allow a criminal POTUS and his partners in crime to get away with anything and everything?

Probably not the POTUS himself. Whether the power extends to pardoning oneself has never been tested in court.

 

[Politruk]

Like if it was eventually proven that he was actually born in some other country?

You really are an idiot.