Can the president pardon himself?

[Chris]

There's another thread on the story/rumors of Trump pardoning himself. The question here is more specific: Can he pardon himself? A secondary question is, were he to pardon himself, would impeachment then still be a possibility?

Can the president pardon himself? (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/21/4-questions-about-presidential-pardon-power/)


...Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution says the president "shall have the Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

The power of the pardon "is considered one of the least limited powers of the executive," said James Robenalt, a lawyer at the firm Thompson Hine and an expert on Watergate.

Robenalt said the authority can be traced back to the power of English kings to pardon. In Federalist Paper No. 74, Alexander Hamilton wrote, "Humanity and good policy conspire to dictate, that the benign prerogative of pardoning should be as little as possible fettered or embarrassed."

One limit is noted explicitly in the Constitution -- that the president can’t pardon in cases of impeachment. Meanwhile, the phrase "offenses against the United States" is generally meant to address federal criminal cases and to rule out state-level cases and civil cases.

...

Legal experts also agree that a crime needs to have been committed already for a pardon to be made.

[MisterVeritis]

There's another thread on the story/rumors of Trump pardoning himself. The question here is more specific: Can he pardon himself? A secondary question is, were he to pardon himself, would impeachment then still be a possibility?
Can the president pardon himself? (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/21/4-questions-about-presidential-pardon-power/)
Legal experts also agree that a crime needs to have been committed already for a pardon to be made.
"Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution says the president "shall have the Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

I believe this says no crime is required and the President can pardon anyone, including himself.

[Chris]

"Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution says the president "shall have the Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

I believe this says no crime is required and the President can pardon anyone, including himself.

I agree, it doesn't exclude himself, except in impeachment cases. But how pardon for something you haven't been convicted of?

[MisterVeritis]

I agree, it doesn't exclude himself, except in impeachment cases. But how pardon for something you haven't been convicted of?
Simple. Pardon for any past or current offenses. Conviction is not a requirement.

[Dangermouse]

He seems to believe so. A real President shouldn't even be thinking about needing to.

[MisterVeritis]

He seems to believe so. A real President shouldn't even be thinking about needing to.
And no President should face a coup.

[Chris]

I don't know but that seems to defy the plain meaning of 'pardon.'

Wikipedia reads: "A pardon is a government decision to allow a person who has been convicted of a crime to be free and absolved of that conviction, as if he or she were never convicted."

I would think the clause was meant to correct judicial error.

[Chris]

He seems to believe so. A real President shouldn't even be thinking about needing to.

Yes, that's an important question, too, whether it would be the proper thing to do, even if he could. I think not.

[MisterVeritis]

I don't know but that seems to defy the plain meaning of 'pardon.'

Wikipedia reads: "A pardon is a government decision to allow a person who has been convicted of a crime to be free and absolved of that conviction, as if he or she were never convicted."

I would think the clause was meant to correct judicial error.
One can turn to Wiki or one can read the Constitution.

[Chris]

One can turn to Wiki or one can read the Constitution.

And its plain reading would imply pardon for convictions. There's no point to it otherwise.

Besides, wiki is not interpreting the Constitution, just defining the meaning of a word.

[MisterVeritis]

And it's plain reading would imply pardon for convictions. There's no point to it otherwise.
A plain reading indicates no conviction is required.

[Chris]

A plain reading indicates no conviction is required.

How do you arrive at that conclusion based on the text? Explain what indicates that.

[MisterVeritis]

How do you arrive at that conclusion based on the text? Explain what indicates that.
No. You enjoy.

[Chris]

Right, because it doesn't say that. The plain meaning of pardon implies setting aside the sentence or punishment for a conviction. Otherwise, what is being pardoned? It makes no sense to say future sentence/punishment is pardoned. And pardoning certainly doesn't prevent future charges.

[Chris]

OK, there is a precedent to pardoing for future offenses in Ex parte Garland 71 U.S. 333 (1866).

I'll give a brief summary.

Congress in January 24th, 1865, passed an act that barred ex-Confederates from practicing at the bar or presiding in court unless they took an oath of allegiance. "In July, 1865, Mr. Garland received from the President [71 U.S. 333, 337] a pardon, by which the chief magistrate, reciting that Mr. Garland, 'by taking part in the late Rebellion against the government, had made himself liable to heavy pains and penalties,' &c., did thereby 'Grant to the said A. H. Garland a FULL PRADON AND AMNESTY for all offences by him committed, arising from participation, direct or implied, in the said Rebellion, conditioned as follows...." COndition including taking an other of alligiance--so what was the point? I believe a lower court tossed the pardon but SCOTUS "i[]n a 5-4 vote the Supreme Court ruled that the law was indeed a bill of attainder and an ex post facto law. The court ruled that Garland was beyond the reach of punishment of any kind due to his prior presidential pardon." And they struck the act.

A few sources: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/71/333.html, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/71/333/case.html, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Garland

Can the President pardon people who haven’t been convicted? (https://constitutionalism.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/can-the-president-pardon-people-who-havent-been-charged/) rejects the court's opinion:


Where the question gets interesting is when we ask if he can grant a pardon for a conviction that has not yet occurred, or prevent a trial from being held. From my historical research, and despite Ex parte Garland, I find the answer to both is no. A pardon has to specify a sentence as well as the defendant, and that can’t be known before conviction. Granting a pardon to someone for anything he might be convicted of, in advance of such conviction, is in conflict with the constitutional prohibition against granting titles of nobility, and exempting someone from prosecution for anything at all is making that person a noble, even if it comes only with a title of “he who is above the law”. Leaving aside the obvious likelihood that the Court in Ex parte Garland was corrupt, this point was not argued before the Court and therefore the precedent does not cover it.

[Beevee]

Simple. Pardon for any past or current offenses. Conviction is not a requirement.

Where his family is concerned, don't you think he should include the future as well?

[Mechanic]

There's another thread on the story/rumors of Trump pardoning himself. The question here is more specific: Can he pardon himself? A secondary question is, were he to pardon himself, would impeachment then still be a possibility?

Can the president pardon himself? (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/21/4-questions-about-presidential-pardon-power/)



Legal experts also agree that a crime needs to have been committed already for a pardon to be made.
This piece of crap cannot even excuse himself.

[hanger4]

Nixon was given a full and unconditional pardon for any crimes he might have committed against the United States while president. There was no constitutional challenge that I remember.

[Chris]

Nixon was given a full and unconditional pardon for any crimes he might have committed against the United States while president. There was no constitutional challenge that I remember.

That's true. And there was immediate criticism publicly, politically and even a Congressional hearing, where among other reasons, Ford based his decision on a SCOTUS case that held granting the pardon and accepting was an admission of guilt. The country needed to move on but it set a bad precedent for premature pardons.

[hanger4]

That's true. And there was immediate criticism publicly, politically and even a Congressional hearing, where among other reasons, Ford based his decision on a SCOTUS case that held granting the pardon and accepting was an admission of guilt. The country needed to move on but it set a bad precedent for premature pardons.

I agree with the admission of guilt if accepted. Nixon's pardon stands as precedent, one can be pardoned without conviction or even indictment.

[Newpublius]

I don't know but that seems to defy the plain meaning of 'pardon.'

Wikipedia reads: "A pardon is a government decision to allow a person who has been convicted of a crime to be free and absolved of that conviction, as if he or she were never convicted."

I would think the clause was meant to correct judicial error.

See the federalist papers on pardons, the federalist papers specifically contemplate a pardon offer in the face of an insurrection. Obviously pre-arrest, pre-conviction.

Post war we have a blanket pardon for the vast majority of Confederates.

We also have Ford pardoning Nixon before conviction.