Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Can Bush Pardon Himself?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-08 12:29 PM
Original message
Can Bush Pardon Himself?
Edited on Mon Sep-15-08 12:31 PM by davidswanson
Can President Bush pardon himself of crimes like warrantless spying, torture, and aggressive war? Can he pardon his subordinates for following his instructions, and do so before they're even indicted? There's a good chance he'll try it. There's also a chance some Congress members will preemptively push back against such preemptive pardons, by legislating limitations on pardons, by introducing an article of impeachment, or simply by staking out a public position.

If I were in Congress I'd send the president a note something like the following. You might want to ask your Congress member to do the same.

Dear Mr. President,

If you issue pardons that do not fit a reasonable definition of pardons, that in fact abuse the pardon power as you have abused so many other powers, we will support your immediate impeachment before or after you leave office.

False pardons that we will not accept from you or any future president include:

--self-pardons of the president;

--pardons of any staff or contractors of the executive branch, including the vice president, of crimes authorized by the president; and

--preemptive pardons of any individuals of crimes for which they have not yet been convicted.

Alexander Hamilton defended the pardon power in Federalist 74, suggesting that "the fate of a fellow-creature depended on his sole fiat, would naturally inspire scrupulousness and caution (in the president)." A FELLOW CREATURE is clearly NOT the president himself. Hamilton discussed the possibility of "the secret sympathy of the friends and favorers of the condemned person, availing itself of the good-nature and weakness of others (were the pardon power to be given to more than a single individual)." Clearly the CONDEMNED PERSON is someone other than those holding the pardon power and is someone who has ALREADY BEEN CONDEMNED. Hamilton discusses the possibilities of pardons only "when the laws have once ascertained the guilt of the offender." A preemptive pardon was not even imagined by this discussion. A pardon simply was something done after a conviction. Hamilton called pardons "exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt." Guilt comes after a trial, not before. Hamilton concludes his essay thus:

"(I)t would generally be impolitic beforehand to take any step which might hold out the prospect of impunity. A proceeding of this kind, out of the usual course, would be likely to be construed into an argument of timidity or of weakness, and would have a tendency to embolden guilt."

And yet, what other than a preemptive holding out of the prospect of impunity, are we to find in your directive of February 7, 2002, claiming immunity from the Geneva Conventions, or the various memos of your subordinates similarly claiming a right to illegally detain and torture?

George Mason argued that we needed impeachment in the Constitution because a president might some day try "to stop inquiry and prevent detection" of wrongdoing within his administration or might "pardon crimes which were advised by himself."

James Madison maintained that if "the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty."

When these men gave the president the pardon power in the Constitution, they clearly did not intend it to include preemptive pardons, self-pardons, or pardons of crimes authorized by the president. They thought such abuses merited impeachment. In fact, they thought the possibility of such abuses justified the creation of the power of impeachment in the Constitution. And some of these abuses -- those of self-pardon and preemptive pardon -- were so outrageously counter to the basic idea of a government of laws, that they lay outside the imagination of our nation's founders. Their unacceptability went without saying.

The pardon power has been abused by presidents, including Ford, Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and others. It will be abused no longer.

I am committed to upholding the Constitution. If you attempt false pardons, you will be impeached.

Sincerely,






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
lligrd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-08 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
1. No, But That Won't Stop Him From Doing So nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ColbertWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-08 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. He'll probably do it, but in secret, then ...
... withhold the list and claim "executive privilege" for doing so.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jojo54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-08 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
2. That's a hell of a lot to pardon, IMO!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tannybogus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-08 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
4. Even God will have to think long and hard about pardoning him.
You know he won't repent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoyGBiv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-08 12:37 PM
Response to Original message
5. It's not been tested ...

There have been legal theories presented from both sides of the issue, from the Nixon era. A brief was prepared for Nixon justifying his pardoning of himself. He chose not to do so, some say after getting assurances from Ford that he'd do it.

IOW, it would be an issue that went to SCOTUS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tangerine LaBamba Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-08 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. That was the deal they cut
Nixon resigned, Ford would pardon him.

That's the only way they could get Nixon out of the White House before he totally melted down. Ford wanted the Presidency so bad, he was willing to trash the judicial process to get it.

It's a fascinating issue, but I'd sure as hell be nervous about it going up to this current Supreme Court.

(Nice name, Spectrum)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoyGBiv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-08 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. It would be interesting ...

The thing that makes it interesting is that the legal logic upon which self-pardon is based is derivative, meaning "originalists" have a problem with it as it doesn't follow the "strict constructionist" ideology. The Court is so packed with originalists right now that it would set up an interesting, to say the least, scenario. Bush's lawyers would basically have to ask the neo-con's own SCOTUS to look past the text and intent of the founders and see the Constitution as a living document.

I don't really want to see it, but if it happened, I'd be glued to the wrangling.

And, thanks. It's an abbreviation of Rainbow Warrior, an homage to the Greenpeace ship.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurpleChez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-08 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. Yeah...
my understanding is that this issue was discussed in the lead-up to Nixon's departure (and that many folks believed he would in fact pardon himself) but that a definitive answer was never agreed upon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smb Donating Member (761 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-08 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
7. Yes...
...but he'll go blind and grow hair on his palms. Also, it will make the baby Jesus cry and kill a kitten.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jakem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-08 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
8. im not even sure he can wipe his own ass!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-08 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
11. If He Does, We Should Send Him to the Hague

The Peace Palace, The Hague, NL, Home of the International Criminal Court

The "Get Out of Jail Free" card does not work here.

The U.N. Prison at the Hague. Home of convicted war criminals


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-08 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #11
28. Even if he doesn't
I want him to go to the Hague, no matter what!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-08 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. The U.N. Prison in the Hague Was Made for People Like Bush and Cheney
Certainly their crimes against the people of Iraq and humanity in general eclipse those against the American people.

The Hague would be the most appropriate venue to try them in.

This would also go a long way towards restoring our standing in the world.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-08 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
12. Cheney will resign for health reasons in January...
Bush will appoint Palin Vice President, Bush will resign, Palin will pardon Bush.

Woohoo! Our first female President!

McCain will steal election, McCain will resign, Palin will pardon McCain and the U.S. Press will be all giddy about how the continuity of the Executive Office was maintained in such a time of extreme crisis.

Okay, maybe not that, but there will surely be some sort of malignant farce, and the sad thing is many Americans are going to buy into it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paparush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-08 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. None of those evil fucks is ever going to resign. Resignations are for wimps like Nixon
These evil shites have so much hubris, they will shit on America and charge us $50 bucks for a roll of paper towels.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
djp2 Donating Member (276 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-08 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. Or, much simpler
In January Bush pardons Cheney, et al...then resigns,then Cheney as President Pardons Bush
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-08 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #12
21. It all seems like a big farce - and it gets stranger and stranger
Today The Full Moon is in Pisces, and the Sabien symbols for this moon tell us that those who will NOT LET GO of what they need to let go of, will have it taken from them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
George II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-08 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
14. Sure, if he burps or farts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gregorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-08 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
15. There's something wrong with Congress.
Another important and intelligent post by you. Thank you so much.

I'm fearful that both parties, except for a very limited number, are bound by promises. Big money.

But the system, as complex as it may get, is quite simple. And we're abusing it by not using what is staring us right in the face.

Are we blind?

If we don't impeach, I seriously doubt civil litigation will be a remedy.

I'll read this again, and take action.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenTea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-08 08:01 PM
Response to Original message
16. Nixon couldn't pardon himself or he would of done it...He needed Ford as prez to pardon him...
Edited on Mon Sep-15-08 08:05 PM by GreenTea
Is this not correct?

Cheney and Bush have changed and signed into law more executive privilege and infinite mores powers to the executive branch then the framers of our Constitution wanted the executive branch to have. Basically Bush/Cheney have given dictatorial powers to the presidents office, so who know...the Supreme Court will most likely back Bush again...in whatever he tries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-08 08:22 PM
Response to Original message
18. I think bu$h will do anything he wants. Who will stop him?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-08 08:24 PM
Response to Original message
19. No, but he can do something else to himself.
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sicksicksick_N_tired Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-08 08:27 PM
Response to Original message
20. Wouldn't that be funny (and consistent): PREEMPTIVE PARDONS!
:rofl:

No. There is nothing to pardon. A conviction is required for a pardon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vattel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-08 04:31 AM
Response to Original message
22. I disagree
only with your view that preemptive pardons are unconstitutional. During the constitutional convention, Luther Martin suggested a ban on preconviction pardons, but withdrew the motion after James Wilson pointed out that pretrial pardons preempting prosecution might be needed to induce coconspirators to testify against their leader.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-08 08:23 AM
Response to Original message
23. Yes. The president can pardon anyone, including himself, and does not need a reason
Edited on Tue Sep-16-08 08:24 AM by Gman
it's in the constitution.

People will fall over in shock in January when the pardons come out. The Clinton pardons will forever be seen as trivial fluff. The faux outrage over Clinton's pardons will be seen for what it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
melm00se Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-08 08:33 AM
Response to Original message
24. interesting intellectual puzzle
the text reads "he (the President) shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." Article II, section 2.

It does not not specifically address who he can pardon, nor does it specifically address, other than "in Cases of Impeachment" who he can not pardon.

it'd be interesting how the court would decide on this or if the sitting President would short circuit the possibility of Judicial limitation by issuing his own overriding pardon.

I also think that while it is laudable that the Bush administration be investigated post presidency, I seriously doubt that any sitting president would stand aside and let a former president get indicted, tried and convicted...it opens the door to too wide for monday morning quarterbacking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Philosoraptor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-08 08:34 AM
Response to Original message
25. He can certainly go FUCK HIMSELF.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
guyton Donating Member (370 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-08 08:57 AM
Response to Original message
26. international war crimes trials
Ah, but won't any 'pardon' extend only to the borders of the US? I suspect it won't hold any weight in the war-crimes trials that they so richly deserve.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stanchetalarooni Donating Member (838 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-08 09:15 AM
Response to Original message
27. PARDON me but they should take that Bush guy out back and.............
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bean fidhleir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-08 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
30. That's an inadequate formula, David.
The restriction should read something like: No person holding the office of President shall pardon any act committed during the time the pardon-giver held any federal elected or appointed office. The sole exception shall be for acts that a reasonable person would conclude was not connected in any way with the federal government or the goals of any federal official. Any attempted pardon that does not meet these conditions shall be null and void.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 08:07 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC