Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

tritsofme

(19,938 posts)

2. It can be read differently, which is why it is a matter of such controversy.

Reply to lagomorph777 (Original post)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 11:19 AM

Jun 2018

Does your reading also imply that the president would be prohibited from pardoning any executive branch official or even judges who are subject to impeachment?

It could also be read to mean that even after impeachment, the normal course of the criminal justice process will still apply, and that process includes the pardon power.

I think the overarching principle that no man may be a judge in his own proceedings is a stronger argument against self-pardon. The language in the pardon clause also strongly implies that the party giving the pardon (the president) and the party receiving the pardon are two different people.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

27 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"in Cases of Impeachment...the Party convicted shall nevertheless be ...subject to Indictment [View all] lagomorph777 Jun 2018 OP

It says the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject NewJeffCT Jun 2018 #1

That's not what the clause means. Adrahil Jun 2018 #5

Exactly, thank you! lagomorph777 Jun 2018 #10

that's the weak argument they're making. it doesn't really imply that, it leaves it open. unblock Jun 2018 #7

It can be read differently, which is why it is a matter of such controversy. tritsofme Jun 2018 #2

I could read it in Klingon or Elvish; that doesn't change what it clearly says. lagomorph777 Jun 2018 #11

Well, all it clearly says is that the only restriction is that a pardon cannot apppy to impeachment tritsofme Jun 2018 #17

My OP is not about pardons at all. lagomorph777 Jun 2018 #18

Then I misunderstood. tritsofme Jun 2018 #19

Bizarrely, it is indeed a matter of controversy. lagomorph777 Jun 2018 #20

You and Stephen Colbert, saidsimplesimon Jun 2018 #26

Article II, Section 2 billh58 Jun 2018 #3

Another interpretation is that the president cannot pardon any party involved in an impeachment case FreepFryer Jun 2018 #4

People forget that many officials are subject to impeachment, not just the President. Adrahil Jun 2018 #6

He also can't pardon anybody else being impeached. lagomorph777 Jun 2018 #12

Including Gorsuch. duforsure Jun 2018 #8

ah, yes, the usurping, installed stooge bucolic_frolic Jun 2018 #9

We'll be nice. lagomorph777 Jun 2018 #13

Good luck proving that there was anything "illegal" about the confirmation of Gorsuch onenote Jun 2018 #14

You've hit the nail on the head bucolic_frolic Jun 2018 #15

I don't think you can impeach him legally. Demsrule86 Jun 2018 #16

Right; impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. lagomorph777 Jun 2018 #22

I don't think it is possible. Demsrule86 Jun 2018 #25

Mathematically, I agree, unfortunately. lagomorph777 Jun 2018 #27

not clear scipan Jun 2018 #21

I'm aware of the infamous DOJ memo, lagomorph777 Jun 2018 #24

please let him be gone bdamomma Jun 2018 #23