From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 06:03:10 GMT

In <randall.726350918@seashore> randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea) writes:
>niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>>>Hmm.  Does the US president's power to pardon any limits at all: 
>>>Could he pardon himself?
>>Yes, I suppose, but could you imagine the outcry if a president did 
>>this, though?

>Read the Constitution.   Article II, Section 2: "He shall have the power
>to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States,
>except in cases of Impeachment."   He could not pardon himself if
>he were impeached.

I've read it, thanks.  What does your quote, and true statement about
impeachment, have to do with the question?

Bush can't prevent himself from being impeached, but he can pardon
himself to prevent himself from being prosecuted.

>>>Could he pardon someone "for any and all crimes he may have committed"?
>>Isn't this what a pardon does?

>The Constitution does not say that someone must be convicted before
>getting a pardon.   The first time a pardon was used before a conviction
>was Ford's pardoning of Nixon, and it was not challenged in the courts.

True.

>>>For that matter, who could control it -- can the Supreme Court judge
>>>such a pardon unconstitutional?  Could a presidential pardon be
>>No; a pardon cannot be unconstitutional -- it doesn't make sense to say
>>that.  Now, if the president tried to give an invalid pardon, such as
>>for future crimes, the courts would be free to ignore it if a person
>>later commits a crime and is prosecuted for it.

>A pardon could be held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.  Ford's
>pardon could have been challenged in court, but it wasn't.   If the
>court declared a pardon unconstitutional, it would cause a serious
>Constitutional crisis.

But what would it mean to say that a pardon is unconstitutional?  It
doesn't make any sense.  The only thing the constitution says is that
pardons don't extend to impeachment.  So how can a pardon violate the
constitution?

>>The Constitution explicitly states that a pardon doesn't extend to
>>impeachment.  But impeachment isn't punishment -- it's simply removal
>>from office.  Impeachment doesn't overrule a pardon; it's a separate issue. 

>Impeachment is NOT removal from office.  It is essentially an indictment.
>Andrew Johnson was impeached but not removed from office.

Yes, I know.  I was giving the quick answer.  It doesn't change my
point.  I should have said "the impeachment process," as the media
usually refers to it.

The point was that impeachment/pardons are not related.  Pardons protect
you from being punished for committing a crime.  The impeachment process
is not punishment.

Just as a person can be impeached/removed from office and then sent to
jail for a crime without violating the constitutional protection against
double jeopardy.

Or, for that matter, just as a person can be *ACQUITTED* of a crime but
then impeached, as ex-Judge, now Represenative, Alcee Hastings was.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina