msnbc No evidence that Trump followed the normal process of pardoning people. Guest mentioned

[Ms. Toad]

7. Not quite.

The constitution prohibits the deprivation of liberty and property interests without due process. What Arpaio did violated the due process rights of the individuals he unconstitutionally profiled, detained etc. The only way of enforcing the rights of individuals like those targeted by Arpaio is the power of injunction (and contempt if the injunction is violated). Permitting a pardon for such acts (and sending the message that future state actors can expect to be pardoned) threatens the rest of the constitution.

A similar quandry faced courts that regularly found that evidence had been obtained in violation of constitutional rights - but permitted it to be used any way because nothing in the constitution directly prohibits the use of unconstitutionally obtained evidence to obtain a conviction. Before exclusionary rules, courts regularly found that the constitutional rights of defendants had been violated, then proceeded to convict then with - effectively - a "too bad, so sad, you lose" attitude. To put teeth into the constitutional prohibition, courts created rules excluding evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights.

Courts could take a similar path here, by fashioning a rule to protect the constitutional rights of Arapaio's targets (or more likely targets of different law enforcement officers down the road) by finding the pardon of the offender itself a violation of the constitution.