Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gothmog

(143,998 posts)
Tue Jun 20, 2017, 03:48 PM Jun 2017

Could Trump issue himself a pardon?

I doubt that Trump can legally pardon himself. The fact that we are having to ask the question is so very very sad https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/05/24/could-trump-issue-himself-a-pardon/?utm_term=.5aac3e6356f6

“We can all only speculate what would happen if the president tried to do it,” said Brian Kalt, professor of law at Michigan State University and author of the book “Constitutional Cliffhangers.” “We’re all just predicting what the court would do if it happened, but no one can be sure.”

The constitutional language governing pardons reads, “The President … shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” That vagueness is part of the reason the boundaries of the authority would need to be interpreted by the courts in unusual cases, like the one at hand.

That said, Kalt’s got an opinion about what the Supreme Court would do if Trump (or any president) tried to give himself a pardon: They’d throw it out.

Kalt’s reasons are similarly rooted in interpretations of the language of the Constitution and the intent of its authors.

For example, a pardon is “inherently something that you get from someone else,” he argued. That’s not explicit in the constitutional language, but, then, other boundaries we understand for pardons aren’t either, such as our understanding that there need not be a criminal charge before a pardon. (The most famous example of this kind of pardon was offered by President Gerald Ford to his predecessor, Richard Nixon.)

P.S. Ruckman, professor of political science at Northern Illinois University and author of the blog Pardon Power agreed with this idea in an email. “Supreme Court jurisprudence has always assumed a dichotomy — the granter and the recipient,” he said — the implication being that one person can’t play both roles.

What’s more, “presidents are supposed to be limited,” Kalt said. “The president has all of this power, but he has a limited term. If he was able to pardon himself, that would project his power well past his term.”
14 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Gothmog

(143,998 posts)
3. I agree with your analysis
Tue Jun 20, 2017, 03:51 PM
Jun 2017

The fact that lawyers are looking into this issue is what bothers me greatly

H2O Man

(73,308 posts)
10. I agree that
Tue Jun 20, 2017, 05:08 PM
Jun 2017

he can't. I think that Nixon knew that would be another abuse of power. However, I do not think Nixon was actually worried about facing legal charges: his defense team would have immediately gone for classified documents that no one would have agreed, at that time, to turn over. It would not have had any chance of going to trial.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
5. The thought of dangling a "pardon" over Trump and his crime family's head must be empowering.
Tue Jun 20, 2017, 04:05 PM
Jun 2017

Pence, or the next Prez, will certainly hold the cards. Of course, Trump probably has something on Pence too to force him into granting a pardon.

unblock

(51,973 posts)
6. i actually think this is an interesting constitutional issue.
Tue Jun 20, 2017, 04:21 PM
Jun 2017

first, it's a very sorry state of affairs that the supreme court is probably even more partisan now than it was when it issued bush v. gore, in which the republican majority sided with the candidate they no doubt voted for on election day and covered it with logic so twisted it could be considered farce.

i have zero confidence in this court to find a thoughtful answer to this question.


second, it's plain that benedict donald's use of a self-pardon would be a flagrant abuse, an obvious obstruction of justice.


that said, constitutional questions should be answered not as one-offs, but to set precedent for future cases, so justices should consider different circumstances under which a self-pardon might happen.

on its face, the founders didn't want a corrupt government, and a self-pardon could allow a president to violate federal law with impunity. clearly the founders didn't want to grant anyone a license to do that.

however, note that the original intent of the pardon power was to give the president a check and balance against over-zealous prosecutors. remember that the english liked to lock up colonists they didn't like, and we owe much of the constitution and the bill of rights to the founder's efforts to prevent this.

so, what happens if an over-zealous prosecutor goes after the president and the president can't self-pardon? it seems that, either you have to allow a self-pardon or you have to give the president some other protection, e.g., to fire the prosecutor or to at least say that a sitting president can't be prosecuted (although that doesn't prevent a president from being locked up once out of office).

if a president does abuse a self-pardon, one might reason that at least the people can then vote that person out, or that congress could impeach and remove. remember, of course, the founders paid attention to institutional powers, and didn't really contemplate the current situation where a same-party congress might refuse to impeach and remove a president, no matter how horrendous.

i don't know that i have an answer to this.

like i said, i think it's actually an interesting constitutional question -- even though it would clearly be an abuse of power in the current situation.





marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
7. I don't think the president can self pardon
Tue Jun 20, 2017, 04:43 PM
Jun 2017

And the pardon was not intended as a check on overzealous prosecutors. It was intended as a way of introducing mercy into cases where the strict operation of justice would cause an excessively harsh result. The check on overzealous prosecutors are judges and juries.

unblock

(51,973 posts)
9. agreed -- it's a check on the end result of the judicial process, not the prosecutor in particular.
Tue Jun 20, 2017, 05:01 PM
Jun 2017

although "mercy" is an overly narrow rationale as it implies that the judicial process got it largely right (e.g., right verdict but overly harsh sentence).

the pardon power is also there for cases where someone got railroaded or the judicial result was just plain wrong.

Gothmog

(143,998 posts)
8. I posted this thread because I am not sure that there is a definitive answer
Tue Jun 20, 2017, 04:45 PM
Jun 2017

This is an interesting constitutional question. I tend to believe that Trump cannot pardon himself but this matter is not clear

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Could Trump issue himself...