General Discussion

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)

59. Because the Constitution settled it

Mon Jan 18, 2021, 02:12 PM

Jan 2021

The Supreme Court interprets the law - i.e., settles it - when it's not clear or there's a dispute. But some (arguably, ev parts of the Constitution are so clear that they don't need to be interpreted by the Court. The Founders settled it when they wrote the Constitution. This, in my view, is one of those situations. The pardon provision language, including the impeachment language, is so clear that it is indisputable, so there's nothing for the Court to interpret or settle. The fact that some people are trying to argue that the language doesn't mean what it says doesn't make the issue unsettled.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

63 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A president CAN pardon people who are involved in crimes that lead to his impeachment [View all] StarfishSaver Jan 2021 OP

Oh, Delphinus Jan 2021 #1

That's probably a lot of these people haven't been charged with anything too serious sboatcar Jan 2021 #2

Funny thing about pardons, you can still be charged with a crime & be formally forced to admit Bernardo de La Paz Jan 2021 #7

Has the power of pardons that are issued before conviction been tested by SCOTUS? Raven123 Jan 2021 #14

There's no question that pardons prior to conviction are valid StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #40

Nebulous pardons covering vague descriptions of possible crimes is not settled law Bernardo de La Paz Jan 2021 #43

I agree. Nixon was in the gray area StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #46

File it in the category of "Perfectly Legal" even if Perfectly Vile and Unjust msfiddlestix Jan 2021 #49

True in some respects StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #50

yes, but we tried in 2016. How was it possible for us imagine our opponents would choose msfiddlestix Jan 2021 #55

I don't think we (the collective "we") tried hard enough in 2016 StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #56

All good points. msfiddlestix Jan 2021 #57

Great information, thanks for posting. nt Maru Kitteh Jan 2021 #31

Great explanation. Thanks! /eom BComplex Jan 2021 #41

Thank you for your tireless efforts to stop the spread of misinformation. femmedem Jan 2021 #3

Thanks. StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #10

its why they are waiting to throw the book the the insurrectionists Squidly Jan 2021 #4

sboatcar Squidly Jan 2021 #6

I'm wondering if he can sell pardons Raven123 Jan 2021 #5

The Constitution doesn't prevent a president from selling pardons StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #8

That's what I'm thinking. So the money he's collecting could be confiscated. Right? Raven123 Jan 2021 #12

Possibly. And he could also go to jail. StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #24

Oh, that's my favorite part. Maru Kitteh Jan 2021 #34

there was a case where a governor was selling pardons and got caught..... getagrip_already Jan 2021 #20

There's no way that he's giving them away. Harker Jan 2021 #9

There would be some criminal law about using government office for private enrichment, I am sure. nt Bernardo de La Paz Jan 2021 #11

He is selling pardons. That who he is.. a corrupt grifter. ananda Jan 2021 #29

How does $2 million per pardon sound to you? Here's some evidence for that... bullwinkle428 Jan 2021 #47

Can it be a pre-emptive/presumptive pardon for any and all crimes? N/T lapucelle Jan 2021 #13

not pre-emptive... getagrip_already Jan 2021 #18

How does Ford's pardon of Nixon fit into your theory? N/T lapucelle Jan 2021 #21

ford pardoned nixon for crimes already committed... getagrip_already Jan 2021 #22

You're right. It hasn't been tested. And I don't think it would hold up StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #25

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one here.... getagrip_already Jan 2021 #27

Pre-trial pardons have been done in federal and state cases StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #32

Yes. hlthe2b Jan 2021 #15

An interesting point in the article: kentuck Jan 2021 #16

Can a pardon obstruct a Senate trial. BrightKnight Jan 2021 #28

Well I guess that settles it, if the DU's Resident eLawyer hath spoken Tarc Jan 2021 #17

Yes, I've always known that Turin_C3PO Jan 2021 #19

Settled law would imply settled cases. Lempert's opinion doesn't make it so. lagomorph777 Jan 2021 #23

Not true. Settled law also means the Constitution laid it out plainly, it's undisputable StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #26

The wording is pretty plain, and I read it 100% differently than you do. lagomorph777 Jan 2021 #30

Are you a lawyer with any training in Constitutional interpretationand analysis? StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #36

I am not, and I made no claim as to it being settled law. lagomorph777 Jan 2021 #37

StarfishSaver, can congress step in for future issues like this? Can they pass a new BComplex Jan 2021 #45

No, they can't StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #48

The iron is hot. An Amendment to limit the pardoning power of the President should be offered Raven123 Jan 2021 #33

If we're going to amend the Constitution, there are many more areas that have a much higher priority StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #38

But pardoning insurrectionists for the crime of insurrection puts Trump in serious jeopardy in trial Pobeka Jan 2021 #35

Yes. Definitely that StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #39

We may well see the Supreme Court weighing in on some of the pardons before it is all over. Chainfire Jan 2021 #42

That's a good analogy StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #44

Law is not mathematics; and to my knowledge, this question has never been tested struggle4progress Jan 2021 #51

Law is not mathematics, but it is a lot of "they said what they meant and meant what they said"" StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #52

A pardoned person cannot plead the fifth on that particular crime because he is in no legal danger. keithbvadu2 Jan 2021 #53

That's true in theory but not always in practice StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #54

How is it not a matter of unsettled law? kcr Jan 2021 #58

Because the Constitution settled it StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #59

The Constitution is self-settling? kcr Jan 2021 #60

For the most part, yes it is StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #61

If it's so clear, why are there so many scholars who disagree? kcr Jan 2021 #62

You won't find many scholars disagreeing StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #63