This is a theoretical question, which may suddenly become very practical.
I would like to know what you think. Just as laymen. Or if you're legally trained, better.
Here's some news coverage.
Here's my take:
No, he cannot do so ethically. But it might be legally possible because it isn't specifically prohibited.
WHY:
Principle of Conflict of Interest.
A President who exercised a Pardon is affecting a sentence. Therefore he is performing as a Judge.
A Person may not judge his son, or wife, or father, or HIMSELF because the adjudication cannot be free from bias.
* Bill Clinton gave his brother a pardon. However the sentence had already been served in full. This is considered a highly controversial pardon.
Principle of Obstruction of Justice.
In every case where a President pardons an individual, we assume that this pardon does not have a bearing on ongoing prosecutions of investigations into the President himself.
* There have been several cases of Pardons being used to interfere with ongoing investigations.
H.W. Bush pardoned Casper Weinberger, Reagan's Secretary of defense to stop investigations into Iran-Contra, which involved H.W. Bush himself.
Arguably, more despicable even than Clinton's pardon.
His son, G. W. Bush pardoned Scooter Libby, to protect the vice President Cheney.
It would seem that the whole idea of a country that fought for independence from a Monarchy is at stake here.
The underlying idea of all men being equal under a Common Law is now in question.
If pardons for the President are possible, then how are Presidential actions to be constrained?
What is to stop a person from committing any series of crimes once he acquires the Office?
No decent President would consider this. The Founders that wrote the Constitution evidently didn't consider it.
I would like to know what you think. Just as laymen. Or if you're legally trained, better.
Here's some news coverage.
Here's my take:
No, he cannot do so ethically. But it might be legally possible because it isn't specifically prohibited.
WHY:
Principle of Conflict of Interest.
A President who exercised a Pardon is affecting a sentence. Therefore he is performing as a Judge.
A Person may not judge his son, or wife, or father, or HIMSELF because the adjudication cannot be free from bias.
* Bill Clinton gave his brother a pardon. However the sentence had already been served in full. This is considered a highly controversial pardon.
Principle of Obstruction of Justice.
In every case where a President pardons an individual, we assume that this pardon does not have a bearing on ongoing prosecutions of investigations into the President himself.
* There have been several cases of Pardons being used to interfere with ongoing investigations.
H.W. Bush pardoned Casper Weinberger, Reagan's Secretary of defense to stop investigations into Iran-Contra, which involved H.W. Bush himself.
Arguably, more despicable even than Clinton's pardon.
His son, G. W. Bush pardoned Scooter Libby, to protect the vice President Cheney.
It would seem that the whole idea of a country that fought for independence from a Monarchy is at stake here.
The underlying idea of all men being equal under a Common Law is now in question.
If pardons for the President are possible, then how are Presidential actions to be constrained?
What is to stop a person from committing any series of crimes once he acquires the Office?
No decent President would consider this. The Founders that wrote the Constitution evidently didn't consider it.
Last edited:
