Are there limits to Presidential pardon powers?

[TexasTiger 12,831]

Are there any limits? Is pardoning ever an abuse of power?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 8/18/2018 at 9:53 AM, TexasTiger said:

Are there any limits? Is pardoning ever an abuse of power?

The text of the Constitution is the first that comes to mind.

[The President] shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. - US Const. art. II, sec. 2.

[homersapien 11,366]

First, abuse of power is a subjective term. I consider Trump's pardons to date to be an abuse of power.  Likewise, some of Clinton's pardons were.

So the real question is, there a legal limit to a president's abuse of power?  Considering the constitution (thanks, Nola), if there is a limit, it can only be set by Congress through the impeachment power. 

Considering the "new" Republican party, that's not very encouraging.

We may find out soon.

 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

I get the feeling that Trump is going to be the catalyst for future curtailment of that presidential power.

[TexasTiger 12,831]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

The text of the Constitution is the first that comes to mind.

[The President] shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. - US Const. art. II, sec. 2.

Can he sell them? 

[homersapien 11,366]

38 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Can he sell them? 

I would think that would fall under the emoluments clause, but presumably, that also can can be enforced by Congress's authority of impeachment. (Nola?)

But considering how Trump has already violated the emoluments clause and considering the current Congress's reaction to that, I can only conclude the short term, practical answer is "yes".  

In fact, it appears he is already selling (the retention) of security clearances in exchange for personal loyalty. 

[TexasTiger 12,831]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

I would think that would fall under the emoluments clause, but presumably, that also can can be enforced by Congress's authority of impeachment. (Nola?)

But considering how Trump has already violated the emoluments clause and considering the current Congress's reaction to that, I can only conclude the short term, practical answer is "yes".  

In fact, it appears he is already selling (the retention) of security clearances in exchange for personal loyalty. 

Can he trade them for non-monetary favors.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Can he sell them? 

Can he sell what - powers vested in the Executive branch? Under the Nondelegation doctrine, no he can not. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

I would think that would fall under the emoluments clause, but presumably, that also can can be enforced by Congress's authority of impeachment. (Nola?)

See above response to Tex. If we're talking delegating Executive power to another branch, the answer surely is a hard "no."

[TexasTiger 12,831]

15 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Can he sell what - powers vested in the Executive branch? Under the Nondelegation doctrine, no he can not. 

He has the power but exercises it for a fee— quid pro quo.

[AU64 10,122]

https://nypost.com/2016/01/17/after-pardoning-criminal-marc-rich-clintons-made-millions-off-friends/

So what ever happened in this case?    HC apparently benefitted from this pardon too.....

[TexasTiger 12,831]

1 hour ago, AU64 said:

https://nypost.com/2016/01/17/after-pardoning-criminal-marc-rich-clintons-made-millions-off-friends/

So what ever happened in this case?    HC apparently benefitted from this pardon too.....

Perhaps the most problematic thing he did. Had he not done it walking out the door, I think Congress could have considered it as an abuse of power.

[homersapien 11,366]

3 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Can he trade them for non-monetary favors.

That's what he's doing now.

[homersapien 11,366]

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

See above response to Tex. If we're talking delegating Executive power to another branch, the answer surely is a hard "no."

I was referring to the question of who has authority to charge Trump with a violation of the emoluments  clause.

[SaltyTiger 7,790]

14 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I was referring to the question of who has authority to charge Trump with a violation of the emoluments  clause.

Maybe this article will help

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/what-is-the-emoluments-clause-does-it-apply-to-president-trump/2017/01/23/12aa7808-e185-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.083c251badaa

January 23, 2017

On Monday morning, a liberal watchdog group filed a lawsuit against President Trump, 

[AU64 10,122]

43 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Maybe this article will help

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/what-is-the-emoluments-clause-does-it-apply-to-president-trump/2017/01/23/12aa7808-e185-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.083c251badaa

January 23, 2017

On Monday morning, a liberal watchdog group filed a lawsuit against President Trump, 

JMO but most of this stuff is harassment …...lots of deep pocket lawyers who are willing to spend money on stuff like this. 

Key statement..."obscure provision"   …which means it has probably never been used against a president in the past, no matter what gifts were offered or taken over the past 150 years. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

19 hours ago, homersapien said:

I was referring to the question of who has authority to charge Trump with a violation of the emoluments  clause.

Got it. 

Bringing such a charge is not limited to Congress. In fact, such lawsuits have already been filed against President Trump (Maryland and District of Columbia). 

Now, if we are talking whether or not it can be charged as an impeachable offense, then yes it would be limited to the House of Representatives, and the Senate per se. Article I, Sec. 2, grants the House with the sole power of impeachment. Section 3 delegates to the Senate the sole power to try all Impeachments. The basis of any charges as such must be grounded in Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors. The latter phrase is inherently vague.  

So the question becomes, can Congress, under its impeachment power, exercise such power in these circumstances? 

Short answer: I don't know.

Reason for short answer: IMO, essential constitutional elements at issue are often misconceived by the participants at play, as well as by many in the academic forum. The prevailing view of impeachment and executive immunity slights both constitutional language and history (if you've ever read any of Hamilton's essays). The scope of impeachment, based on a straight-forward reading of Constitutional provisions, is demonstrably different than the "outside" consensus.  I think it is for these reasons that "some" dismissed the impeachment of Bill Clinton as beyond the pale of legitimacy - which, believe it or not, I don't think to be necessarily unwarranted skepticism. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 8/21/2018 at 2:36 PM, TitanTiger said:

I get the feeling that Trump is going to be the catalyst for future curtailment of that presidential power.

Even if we assume there has been such a curtailment (the answer to which I offer no opinion), I would think that your feeling can, or rather "should hopefully," be tempered in light of our system of Checks and Balances. 

[homersapien 11,366]

12 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Got it. 

Bringing such a charge is not limited to Congress. In fact, such lawsuits have already been filed against President Trump (Maryland and District of Columbia). 

Now, if we are talking whether or not it can be charged as an impeachable offense, then yes it would be limited to the House of Representatives, and the Senate per se. Article I, Sec. 2, grants the House with the sole power of impeachment. Section 3 delegates to the Senate the sole power to try all Impeachments. The basis of any charges as such must be grounded in Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors. The latter phrase is inherently vague.  

So the question becomes, can Congress, under its impeachment power, exercise such power in these circumstances? 

Short answer: I don't know.

Reason for short answer: IMO, essential constitutional elements at issue are often misconceived by the participants at play, as well as by many in the academic forum. The prevailing view of impeachment and executive immunity slights both constitutional language and history (if you've ever read any of Hamilton's essays). The scope of impeachment, based on a straight-forward reading of Constitutional provisions, is demonstrably different than the "outside" consensus.  I think it is for these reasons that "some" dismissed the impeachment of Bill Clinton as beyond the pale of legitimacy - which, believe it or not, I don't think to be necessarily unwarranted skepticism. 

Thanks for the response.

What I am confused about is the issue of executive immunity.  What's the point of lawsuits being filed by Maryland and DC if the president cannot be indicted?  Are these civil lawsuits?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

27 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Even if we assume there has been such a curtailment (the answer to which I offer no opinion), I would think that your feeling can, or rather "should hopefully," be tempered in light of our system of Checks and Balances. 

"Has been"...I'm talking about the future.  I think if Trump abuses this power to pardon all his buddies that get into trouble over this stuff, Congress will act at some point to place some limits on the presidential pardoning powers.  

[AU64 10,122]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

"Has been"...I'm talking about the future.  I think if Trump abuses this power to pardon all his buddies that get into trouble over this stuff, Congress will act at some point to place some limits on the presidential pardoning powers.  

So you have decided that this would be an "abuse of power"..?  and how did you get the right to decide that and on what basis"  

I can see that the dems will be upset over this......but in considering the balance of power concept of our government,   it's doubtful. that Congress has the ability or power to overturn that right......short of a Constitutional amendment since this a constitutional right of the president.   

  I mean, presidents pardon and commute sentences in great numbers....been going on forever.  Here are the ones from Obama's time in office..

.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ List_of_people_granted_executive_clemency_by_Barack_Obama   

So nobody is or had been cherry picking his  the list to decide that some are not worthy of pardon?    Even when the terrorist guy from Puerto Rico was pardoned, there was little outcry over it. ...or Chelsea Manning who was pretty much a convicted traitor ?   and drug dealers galore  

Just more harassment of DT by the whining dems.…..spend time and money and nothing to come of it. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Keeping sucking down the Kool-Aid. 

[homersapien 11,366]

1 hour ago, AU64 said:

So you have decided that this would be an "abuse of power"..?  and how did you get the right to decide that and on what basis" 

Have you fallen and hit your head lately?

[autigeremt 6,599]

On 8/21/2018 at 2:36 PM, TitanTiger said:

I get the feeling that Trump is going to be the catalyst for future curtailment of that presidential power.

I’d like that myself.

[AU64 10,122]

9 hours ago, autigeremt said:

I’d like that myself.

I would not mind either and JMO but some day if they ever elect another president the dems are gonna regret the stuff they are doing now....gonna come back to bite them…...which is too bad in many ways.   

The tug of war in government is probably not good for the country though it appears that most Americans are not paying much attention this stuff....and just going about their business...doing their jobs, raising their kids and enjoying what the country has to offer them......like some college football. .