PDA

View Full Version : There Is No ‘Get Out of Jail Free’ Card for the President




Marenco
06-06-2018, 01:59 AM
There Is No ‘Get Out of Jail Free’ Card for the President

“When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.“—Richard Nixon

Someone needs to alert Donald Trump: there is no “Get Out of Jail Free” card just for being president.

According to Trump’s Twitter feed, he believes that he has an absolute right to pardon himself of any crimes for which he might be charged while serving in office.

He’s not alone in this imperial belief.

Two of Trump’s lawyers have attempted to float the idea that “the president’s powers are so broad as to make it impossible for him to have obstructed justice.”

Rudy Giuliani, another of Trump’s enablers, insists that Trump could even get away with shooting the FBI director in the Oval Office and not be prosecuted for murder. “In no case can he be subpoenaed or indicted,” Giuliani argued, claiming a president’s constitutional powers are that broad.

It’s a losing argument.

Back in 1974, four days before Richard Nixon resigned, the Department of Justice concluded, “Under the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case, the president cannot pardon himself.”

To suggest otherwise, to empower the President to chart his own course and establish his own rules, not bound by the legislative or judicial branches of the government, is to effectively place him “above the law.”

In operating above the law, the president thus becomes a law unto himself—a dictator, an imperial overlord, a king.

Yet the United States government—a constitutional republic—is predicated on the notion that the law is supreme, and that no person, no matter how high-ranking, is able to flout it.

In other words, in America, the law is king.

That is the ideal that Thomas Paine put forth in his revolutionary treatise Common Sense. As Paine observed, “But where, say some, is the king of America? … The world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.”

When we refer to the “rule of law,” that’s constitutional shorthand for the idea that everyone is treated the same under the law, everyone is held equally accountable to abiding by the law, and no one is given a free pass based on their politics, their connections, their wealth, their status or any other bright line test used to confer special treatment on the elite.

When the government and its agents no longer respect the rule of law—the Constitution—or believe that it applies to them, then the very contract on which this relationship is based becomes invalid.

Isn’t that what the American Revolution was all about?

Long before the DOJ issued its 1974 memorandum, which soundly refutes Trump’s claims to legal immunity, America’s founders issued their own proclamation—the Declaration of Independence—denouncing the tyrannical dictates of an imperial ruler.

Unfortunately, we’ve been backsliding ever since.

Although the Constitution requires a separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government in order to ensure accountability so that no one government agency becomes all-powerful, the office of the president of the United States has, for all intents and purposes, become a unilateral power unto itself.

Each successive president over the past 30 years has, through the negligence of Congress and the courts, expanded the reach and power of the presidency by adding to his office’s list of extraordinary orders, directives and special privileges.

All of the imperial powers amassed by Barack Obama and George W. Bush—to kill American citizens without due process, to detain suspects indefinitely, to strip Americans of their citizenship rights, to carry out mass surveillance on Americans without probable cause, to suspend laws during wartime, to disregard laws with which he might disagree, to conduct secret wars and convene secret courts, to sanction torture, to sidestep the legislatures and courts with executive orders and signing statements, to direct the military to operate beyond the reach of the law, to operate a shadow government, and to act as a dictator and a tyrant, above the law and beyond any real accountability—were inherited by Donald Trump.

For more: https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/there_is_no_get_out_of_jail_free_card_for_the_pres ident

Swordsmyth
06-06-2018, 02:04 AM
For more: https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/there_is_no_get_out_of_jail_free_card_for_the_pres ident



In 1974, the Justice Department crafted a memorandum that argued that a president does not possess such a power. (This was issued just before the resignation of President Richard Nixon.) Mary Lawton, who was an acting assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel at the time, wrote, “Under the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case, the President cannot pardon himself.”


But Mark Osler, a former federal prosecutor who is now with the University of St. Louis, disagreed, stating, “He can issue himself a pardon warrant. There is nothing to stop him from doing so.”


Indeed, if one reads the Constitution itself, the presidential power to issue pardons in federal cases appears complete. Article II, Section 2 says of the president, “[He] shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.”


The last five words, however, provide the real check on a president who deserves to be removed from office. The president cannot block Congress from impeaching and removing from office any federal officeholder, including himself.


As Osler added, “The question [after a president pardoned himself] is what happens next. It could be that it could not be challenged until a prosecutor presented a charge against him, and he relied on the pardon as a defense.” If a president were to be indicted, and he then issued himself a pardon, it would almost certainly provoke an effort to impeach the president.


At this point, all the special counsel’s evidence would then be turned over to the appropriate committee of the House of Representatives — the Judiciary Committee. The committee would then examine the evidence and consider if the president had committed any one of four offenses listed in the Constitution as grounds for impeachment: treason, bribery, high crimes, or misdemeanors (serious misbehavior). Treason is the only crime specifically defined in the Constitution, because the Founders, aware of their history, knew full well that treason was a convenient charge of tyrants to quash dissent. “Treason,” the Constitution states, “shall consist only in levying war against them [the United States], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”


Only a rabid partisan Democrat would even attempt to argue that Trump has made “war” against America. It would be difficult to prove that he had given aid and comfort to any enemies of America. After all, the charge (so far lacking evidence) is that the Russians helped Trump, not the other way around. No one has even hinted that multimillionaire Trump has taken a bribe, and if he has committed a “high crime,” no one has presented any actual evidence of such. While Trump has certainly tweeted a string of insults at political enemies since he has been president, and he has behaved differently from most other presidents, it would be hard to make the case that any “misbehavior” by Trump is “serious” enough to warrant impeachment.


But then, the Congress is the sole judge of what is “serious misbehavior,” since it is not defined. So, if the House enemies of Trump could muster a majority vote against him, he would be impeached, and if two-thirds of the Senate voted to convict him, he would be removed from office. But Congress is forbidden by the Constitution from issuing a bill of attainder — congressmen have no power to imprison someone on their own. Their power of impeachment is limited to removal from office, denying the officer the opportunity to ever serve in federal office again, and stripping the removed officer of any pensions.


The Constitution does say, however, that once a person is convicted of an impeachment charge, and removed from office, he would “nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law. But, of course, were the president to have already given himself a pardon, “the law” would not permit such punishment.


The question is not whether we think this is fair or just, but rather is it in accordance with the Constitution? After all, it is “the supreme law” of the land in the United States, not some memorandum prepared by a member of the Department of Justice.

More at: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...pardon-himself (https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/29208-could-president-trump-pardon-himself)

Jamesiv1
06-06-2018, 02:28 AM
Trump is awesome and should always be pardoned of any and all misdeeds.

TheTexan
06-06-2018, 03:10 AM
Fake news.

TheCount
06-06-2018, 05:09 AM
It is high treason to suggest such a thing about the Leader.

shakey1
06-06-2018, 06:21 AM
"While preachers preach of evil fates
Teachers teach that knowledge waits
Can lead to hundred-dollar plates
Goodness hides behind its gates
But even the president of the United States
Sometimes must have to stand naked"