Can President Pardon Himself?

Monument, President, Landmark

There are many television, radio, and Internet pundits who would have the American citizen electorate believe in the second decade of the 21st Century that the Executive branch of the federal government of the American republic, the standing U.S. President, has the U.S. Constitutional Article II power to pardon himself. In so doing, these supposedly educated, and knowledgeable, women and men, regarded in most cases as actors, are affirmed in their contentions by huge followings of their fans, comprising a great many of the men and women over eighteen years of age who are eligible to vote. None the less, are these pundits and commentators right in their presumptions? Yet, just like the generalized power and caveat provided by the Framers in Article I, Section VIII to the republic’s Legislative branch requiring the Congress to legislate laws that are only”necessary and appropriate” to the execution of the particular and exclusive legislative powers set forth in Article I, Section VIII, which has, since 1790, been wrongly and flippantly translated to mean, rather, laws which are”popular and convenient,” the generalized power of the President to pardon in Article II, Section II, Clause I,”… and he shall have the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment” has been speciously translated to mean what it wasn’t intended to mean.

The honored Framers of the U.S. Constitution were many of the same wise and prudent men who had included the First and Second Continental Congresses, who had presided over the Revolutionary War, proclaimed the Declaration of Independence in the creation of a new country, and forged the Articles of Confederation. These men weren’t stupid and prone to flights of fantasy and illogical presumptions. Their levelheadedness had been tested and proven, for they had confronted a flippant British King, George III, who had arrogantly presumed that he, as a dictator, could do no wrong, and that, if he had, he could have waved his royal wand in his imperial fashion and exonerated himself from all blame. In other words, George III presumed that he was above the law, since he flouted justice and natural law. The British Parliament had been made to go along with each the boy-king’s adolescent whims of excellence. For that reason, and for the reasons of law and justice, the Framers placed in the U.S. Constitution’s Article II, Section II a limitation on the pardoning power of a U.S. President. In the first place, a President couldn’t pardon himself. Why? The very specific caveat regarding cases of impeachment made it quite clear that national officers who may only be removed from their offices by impeachment, like presidents, vice-presidents, federal judges, etc. may not be pardoned for their crimes before, or after. Since a U.S. President, while in office, can’t be removed except through the impeachment process, it’s extremely clear that the President cannot pardon himself. Pardons can only be given by U.S. Presidents to felons indicted, tried, and convicted of crimes against the USA, who were exempt from impeachment.

In the very absurd instance of President Richard Nixon, who very clearly committed high-crimes, based upon the evidence adduced against him, and would have likely been federally indicted and convicted after his resignation from the presidency, President Gerald Ford pardoned his predecessor illegally. Nixon had been accused, but not convicted of his alleged crimes. Hence, the pardon for Nixon should have been based upon crimes for which he would have been convicted had he been indicted by a federal grand jury, arrested, and tried in federal court subsequent to his resignation. A U.S. President can’t pardon a person based only on accusations. Exactly like the very first U.S. Congress had permitted President George Washington to issue the initial unconstitutional executive order, ordering the construction of a federal mint, instead of reprimanding him for going against the Constitutional separation of powers, Congress and the majority of the individuals just sat back and allowed Ford to pardon Nixon; and all the while Ford was illegally proceeding against the letter of the U.S. Constitution, the spirit of John Adams was crying out in the tomb that”the American republic republic is a nation of laws, rather than of men.”

There’s also another matter of pure common sense that applies in thoroughly understanding a U.S. President cannot reasonably pardon himself. No individual in an executive government role should have the ability to pardon himself. This type of deleterious power is one that usually resides in the port folio of a tyrant or dictator. Common sense dictates this rationale. It’s been long established in State law that State governors don’t have the State constitutional power to pardon themselves, placing themselves above the law, and State governors are exactly what the U.S. Presidents are to the national government. There are even historic precedents to affirm that 19th and 20th Century U.S. Presidents accused of high-crimes haven’t sought for, or even considered, an Article II, Section II power to pardon themselves. In the very first instance of presidential impeachment, President Andrew Johnson, who replaced Abraham Lincoln after he was assassinated, never believed a pardon for himself, and the issue wasn’t considered by Congress. If the comprehensive historical record of the legislative events of 1868 is inspected, the procedure for impeachment was the only constitutional means of removing a sitting President, and Andrew Johnson accepted the full brunt of the impeachment and was acquitted in trial, on May 28, 1968, by the U.S. Senate by a single vote. The next and most recent attempt to impeach a President, the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, was started in December of 1998 and ended-up with a U.S. Senate acquittal in February of 1999. During that time-frame, neither Clinton, a lawyer, nor his inner circle of legal advisers had never contemplated a self-pardon, and history reveals that Clinton was extremely worried about a conviction vote in the Senate.

The U.S. Constitution remains to be fragile and delicate record of federalism and of the freedom and freedom ordained through the proper care of its established rules, procedures, and procedures. The legislative, executive, and judicial principles, processes, and procedures of this glorious U.S. Constitution have been egregiously and pragmatically changed in implementation with no amendment process over the 20th Century is true and factual. The way those rules, procedures, and procedures were understood in 1790 is the way in which they are understood and applied in 2018, and people wonder what has happened to the government and economy of the American republic. The reading of the Article II, Section II pardoning power of a U.S. President by designing feds and the cockeyed presumptions conjured-up in the minds of those pragmatic people that Presidents have the power to pardon themselves is as good of an example of those lurid changes as can be brought to the immediate light of day.

As was established redundantly during the previous twelve months of special prosecutorial investigation, President Donald Trump has done no wrong as speciously alleged by the innovative liberal Democrats. Instead, the progressive Democrats accusing President Trump have been proven utterly complicit in collusion with the Russians in utilizing the Obama Justice Department and the FBI to illegitimately sabotage the campaign of Presidential Candidate Donald Trump, and his unexpected win in the 2017 Presidential Election. Hence, President Trump would have no reason to seek an unconstitutional effort to pardon himself, to put himself on the same level with Barack Obama, who issued, with impunity, numerous unlawful executive orders to circumvent the Constitutional Legislative process.

In order to ensure that prohibited misinterpretations of the U.S. Constitution are censured and prohibited, a Constitutional convention of the States, under the power given to States by the Framers in Article V of the U.S. Constitution, should be convened by the authority of two-thirds of the State legislatures so as to propose new amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and to repeal certain others, by which activities the intent of the honored Framers would be set indelibly in stone, then and forever, in order to restore what has been desecrated by pragmatic women and men who have sought to undermine the economic, financial, and governmental principles, processes, and procedures of the U.S. Constitution. That this might be carried out very soon is my humble prayer.

In a republic comprised of over 312 million citizens, with an eligible electorate of over 150 million U.S. citizens, there are roughly as numerous aberrant minorities and followings as you may imagine that believe and practice, according to their personal liberty, immorality and lawful, but disgusting, reprobacy. The United States is a complex society where good and decent people can bask in the sunshine of moral and virtuous endeavors, and reap the benefits of such pursuits; while wicked men and women freely plot and conspire to commit crimes against these good and decent people and their land. Yes, the wicked are free to plot and commit crimes, and that is why so many honorable police officers are killed in the line of duty every calendar year.

Mark Levin, with whom I mainly agree, has stated that the majority of the U.S. citizens of 21st Century America don’t understand what freedom actually means; and I wholeheartedly agree with him on that point. Liberty isn’t statism, or government control over the everyday lives of Americans. Liberty, as Henry Ward Beecher so aptly stated, is the soul’s right to breathe, and the basis of American liberty lies in a proper representation of the text of the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights, that were derived from this great Declaration of Independence, which declared the natural rights of all free women and men, and the content of the much sooner document that set in order English justice and common law, the Magna Carta. Liberty cannot be adequately expressed in words, but in the refreshing feeling that the human soul is free from government suppression.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *