One argument against self-pardons - Noblity Prohibited

[bitterross]

If I were arguing the case against Ghouliani on the thought that Presidents can pardon themselves one of the arguments I'd put forth to the court is that the Constitution forbids the awarding of titles of nobility. The intent there is not just that the President should not be called a king but that the President is NOT a king or monarch of any sort.

It should be embarrassing for an actual, licensed, attorney to make the argument the Ghouliani is making. But, since we've dumbed down US citizens they can count on the 45 cultists just going along without critical thought.

If Ghouliani's logic held, then it would be perfectly fine for Trump to murder Ruth Bader Ginsberg on 5th Avenue so he could appoint a new justice, then pardon himself of the Federal Crime for murdering a person appointed to a federal position. Then NY, as it currently stands, cannot prosecute him for the same crime.

That is so absurd that I cannot believe that even the most right-wing justices would want to set that sort of precedent. Where would this end? The President would, effectively, become a monarch.

[manor321]

1. Direct

I'd say the more direct argument is that the Constitution explicitly exempts pardons in matters of impeachment. They clearly anticipated someone trying to save themselves through a pardon.

...and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

I don't think any court would uphold his ability to pardon himself, or to be immune from obstruction of justice.

[bitterross]

2. Good point but different part of law. Great realization from your point though. Thanks.

I agree with you that is a more direct argument. At this point though, he has not had articles of impeachment brought against him. Those and that process are a completely different process than federal or state criminal law.

Your point does make me realize one thing I had not considered. Even if he pardoned himself for the federal crimes it does not mean that congress is prevented from impeaching him anyway. That realization is what makes me think it's probably why Nixon didn't bother to pardon himself and just resigned.

Nixon, with a far better understanding of the Constitution and legal background and legal team than 45, made the decision to get out. He made the decision to get out and, clearly, the deal with Ford for the pardon. Probably a little quid pro quo agreement between Nixon and Ford that Nixon got from Ford before he appointed him VP.

[unblock]

3. To me it's clear that this only means the president can't get out of impeachment via self-pardon

It doesn't say anything about getting out of criminal charges via self-pardon.

I think the argument there is the definition of pardon. It's an act of forgiveness or mercy. It inherently involves two separate people, imho.

I don't think it makes sense to have mercy on yourself or to deem your own prosecution a miscarriage of justice.

In any event there's zero doubt that the framers did not intend to give a president the power to be a tyrant.