The One Word That Bars Trump From Pardoning Himself

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:
Eric Muller
@elmunc
"Can Donald Trump pardon himself? That’s not the question the Constitution requires us to ask. Can Donald Trump *grant himself* a pardon? The evidence, at least according to the text of the Constitution & its original meaning, says no."
Me in @TheAtlantic

The One Word That Bars Trump From Pardoning Himself
The question shouldn’t be whether the president can pardon himself but whether he can grant himself a pardon—and those are not the same thing.
theatlantic.com
5:53 AM · Nov 23, 2020

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/one-word-bars-trump-pardoning-himself/617170/


As donald trump’s tenure in office comes in for its landing, a major question is whether the president—facing questions about liability for offenses including bank and tax fraud—can pardon himself.

This might seem like the right operational question, but it is imprecise as a constitutional one. Article II of the Constitution says that the president “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” Did you catch that? The president has the power not to pardon people, but “to grant … Pardons” (emphasis added). So the question is not whether Trump can pardon himself. It’s whether he can grant himself a pardon.

That might seem like an odd way of putting the question, but it’s linguistically important. On the one hand, some actions can’t be reflexive—you can’t do them to yourself. Think of surrendering, relinquishing, or handing over something. These verbs entail a transfer to someone else; the actor can’t also be the recipient.

On the other hand, countless verbs do leave open the possibility of reflexive meaning. If, for example, the Constitution had empowered the president not to grant a pardon but to announce a pardon, one would be hard-pressed to insist that the president could not announce himself as a recipient.

So, what about granting? Is it—in its usage in the Constitution—a verb more like handing over or announcing?

Judges and other legal scholars have a set of techniques for determining the meaning of constitutional text. One is to scour the rest of the Constitution for hints. If the same word appears in multiple clauses of the Constitution, one should assume that it has the same meaning throughout unless a clear reason exists to think otherwise. So let’s look at the verb grant in the Constitution outside the pardons clause.

*snip*

[Ms. Toad]

1. It's why he's always talked about himself in the third person:

He's going to grant a pardon to Donald Trump (not to himself).

[canetoad]

5. Do you think

That trump is subtle enough to understand...grok, the difference?

[Ms. Toad]

9. Nope. But it makes a good story. n/t

[tritsofme]

2. Interesting piece. This is the sort of argument that could move justices like Gorsuch.

[drray23]

3. sounds like splitting hair but I guess thats what interpreting law is about.

Is not there also a clause about not being able to pardon with a corrupt intent ? That appears to be a more solid argument.

[dchill]

4. Can Trump grant himself a pardon? I don't know...

...but he CAN go fuck himself.

[Nevilledog]

7. Not with that little mushroom dick

[canetoad]

6. Interesting post

And differentiation of language and intent. I shall await the outcome with breathless anticipation.

[Nevilledog]

8. ...

[Fiendish Thingy]

10. Great article! Nt

[IllinoisBirdWatcher]

11. The whole article linked is a great read. EAsy to understand. N/T

[TomSlick]

12. Good article. A compelling argument.

If, as the conservative members of the Court claim, the only goal is to find the original intent of the drafters, the use of the word "grant" should answer the question - a president cannot grant himself a pardon.