Question: If a sitting president...

[Check12]

during a press conference, handed a pistol to an aide and the aid then executed someone on national television in front of millions of people. Could the president then pardon the aide on the spot?
Would he have to wait for a trial and then pardon him?
What could the American people do about the abuse of the pardon after the fact, anything/nothing ?

[SlipperySlope]

1. He could pardon him ASAP

The president doesn't have to wait for a trial.

I don't know if he could do it "on the spot" or not, there is probably some paperwork that needs to be files.

There is no way to override a pardon, staying within the structure of the current constitution.

[Walt Starr]

2. Yep, that would be 100% legal under the consitution

No need to wait. The Nixon precedent states that blanket pardons before the indictment, arrest, or charges is perfectly fine.

The aide could never be held accountable for those actions.

[Check12]

4. Man alive!

Thats a loop hole from hell!

[BlueEyedSon]

3. SO we do have legal precedent for being "above the law"

[A Simple Game]

5. Would the sitting president still be a president,

if he was sitting in a jail cell after being charged as a accessory to the crime of murder?

[fob]

6. That's what I was going to add. Even if the President were able to

pardon the shooter on the spot, they couldn't pardon themself and would/should be hauled off as an accessory pretty damn quickly!

[yodermon]

11. But wouldn't the pres have to be impeached first

before any criminal charges are brought? even for conspiracy?

How about if the pres actually pulled the trigger on nat'l TV?
Is it layed out in the constitution?

pardon my ignorance but it's pertinent: shrub could give blanket pardons to all the crooks in his administration the split seconds indictments come out, even if he was named as unindicted co-conspirator. The repukes have a majority in both houses, so impeachment is out of the question. They also have control of the voting machines, so they are in no danger in 2006.

Any way you cut it, we are fubar.

[Check12]

7. The president just handed him the pistol

He did not say anything..

[A Simple Game]

8. Now, now, it's for the court to decide, not us.

[longship]

9. That President would be burnt toast.

For one thing, handing the pistol to the aide would make it a conspiracy. And even if he didn't hand him the pistol, the public outcry would be massive, coordinated, and devastating. There would be impeachment inquiries faster than you could say "Karl Rove is a traitor."

[Check12]

10. The presidents noise machine would counter

the video was faked! It was a photshop job done by the opposition plot to discredit him, and the army of talk show hosts would scream about the faked news story. The army of lawyers would tie up the courts for the remainder of the term.

[ThomWV]

12. There Is No Restriction

And that is good and as it should be. The President should be able to pardon anyone for anything, even an act that is yet to be committed, without exception. However there is a requirement. He may not do so in secret.

The nation could survive any individual's crime, no matter how dastardly. Someone gets killed before the President's eyes, well, to be quite callous about it, so what? The nation may grieve, but it will not suffer much from the loss life of a single person, no matter who it is. However if the act of pardon was so outlandish to the public then there is always the vehicle of Impeachment available. It is no accident that it is the House - the People's Chamber - which initiates an Impeachment. So there is the remedy for the people to an unthinkable pardon - impeach the man or woman who gave it. However that is the only remedy available.

[Check12]

13. The nation could survive any individual's crime, no matter how dastardly.

The point of forgiving a dastardly crime is ??

[ThomWV]

15. Doesn't Matter What The Reason Is

And the reason could be anything at all. Who knows? We have no specific case before us so we sure can't have a specific reason, can we?

My point is that the Constitution puts no reign on the President in this regard but it does not leave him or her unanswerable to the people. The pardon itself may be such that it makes everyone mad. Maybe the crime is such that no reasonable person could be reconciled to it, but that doesn't diminish the President's power to pardon if he so chooses.

As to the no dastardly crime, well, what could it be? We have survived the assassination of Presidents, the giving up of nuclear secretes, spy's have been created, used, disclosed, hanged, traded, and retired, and the nation survives. Men have been killed by the millions for ideas we would not even think of supporting today and fortunes uncounted have been stolen from both rich and poor - and still the nation survives. So tell me again just how important any single pardon really is.

[Check12]

14. P.S. Ruckman

The Constitution vests the President of the United States with "power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment" (art. ii, sec. 2). The granting of pardons, reprieves, and other manifestations of the clemency power have been variously described as "entirely discretionary,"(1) "unilateral," "notoriously non-reciprocal,"(2) "virtually unassailable,"(3) "absolute,"(4) and "perhaps the most imperial" of presidential, powers.

Yikes!!