In the 1870s, Ulysses S. Grant’s Secretary of War, William Belknap, was Impeached on Charges of Corruption and Bribery. He Resigned his Cabinet post before the House could actually Vote to Impeach him, but the House went ahead and Impeached him anyway.
There was a Lengthy Debate in the Senate over whether it had the Power to put Belknap on Trial for the Charges brought by the House, since Belknap had Resigned. In the End, the Senate Trial went forward, but Belknap fell Short of the 2/3 Majority needed for Conviction even though the Evidence of his Corruption was Clear.
Most of the Senators who Voted against Conviction did so because they believed the Senate lacked Jurisdiction to try him now that he was Out-of-Office. But the fact that he was, Impeached and put on Trial after Resigning, could serve as a Precedent for doing so to someone else again in the future.
The Constitution allows only Two Penalties, Voted Separately, as a result of Impeachment: Removal from Office, then being Banned from Holding Future Federal Office.
Technically, it is probably the case that Congress could Impeach a President who had Left Office in order to Prevent them from holding Future Office in the Federal Government. This would not only Prevent a One-Term President from Returning to seek another Term at a later time, but would Prevent a Former President from: Running for Congress; Serving in the Cabinet of a Future President; a Federal Judge; or Supreme Court Justice.
If a Former President Committed wrongdoing that would justify Impeachment even after they Left Office, they probably have also Committed Federal Crimes that could be more easily Prosecuted through the Criminal Justice System.
Impeachment is Not a Criminal Process. You cannot be sent to Jail because you were Impeached.
Presidents are Granted the Authority to issue Pardons in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution. The clause reads:
"The President ... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." Take note of Two Key Phrases in that Clause. The First Keyphrase Limits the use of Pardons "for offenses against the United States." The Second Key Phrase states that a President can't issue a Pardon "in cases of impeachment."
Those Two Caveats in the Constitution place some Limitations on the President's Power to Pardon. The Bottom Line is that if a President Commits a "high crime or misdemeanor" and is Impeached, he Can't Pardon Himself. He also Cannot Pardon Himself in Private Civil and State Criminal Cases. His Authority extends only to Federal Charges.
Take note of the word "grant." Typically, the Word means One Person gives something to Another. Under that meaning, a President can give someone else a Pardon, but Not Himself.
Some Scholars argue that the President can Pardon Himself in some Circumstances because, and this is a Key Point, the Constitution does Not explicitly Prohibit it. That is considered by some to be the Strongest Argument that a President has the Authority to Pardon himself. The Supreme Court will be the Final Decision deciders.
Other Scholars argue, however, that Presidents Cannot Pardon themselves. More to the point, even if they were, such a move would be incredibly Risky and likely to ignite a Constitutional Crisis in the United States.
Jonathan Turley, a Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, wrote: "Such an act would make the White House look like the Bada Bing Club. After a self-pardon, Trump could wipe out the Islamic State, trigger an economic golden age and solve global warming with a carbon-eating border wall — and no one would notice. He would simply go down in history as the man who not only pardoned his family members but himself."
Michigan State University Law Professor, Brian C. Kalt, writing in his 1997 Paper "Pardon Me: The Constitutional Case Against Presidential Self-Pardons," stated that a Presidential Self-Pardon would Not Hold-Up in Court. "An attempted self-pardon would likely undermine the public's confidence in the presidency and the Constitution. A potential meltdown of such magnitude would be no time to begin legalistic discussion; the political facts of the moment would distort our considered legal judgment. Looking at the question from a cooler vantage point, the intent of the Framers, the words and themes of the Constitution they created, and the wisdom of the judges that have interpreted it all point to the same conclusion: Presidents cannot pardon themselves."
The Courts would likely follow the Principle stated by James Madison in the Federalist Papers. "No man," Madison wrote, "is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity."
In 1974, as President Richard M. Nixon was facing certain Impeachment, he explored the Idea of issuing a Pardon to himself and then Resigning. Nixon's Lawyers prepared a Memo stating such a move would be Legal. The President decided against a Pardon, which would have been Politically Disastrous, but Resigned anyway.
He was later Pardoned by President Gerald Ford. "Although I respected the tenet that no man should be above the law, public policy demanded that I put Nixon-and Watergate-behind us as quickly as possible," Ford said.
The U.S Supreme Court has also ruled that a President can issue a Pardon even before Federal Charges have been Filed. The High Court stated that Pardon Power “extends to every offense known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.”
NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
No comments:
Post a Comment