There are numerous pundits on television, radio, and the Internet who want the electorate of American citizens to believe in the second decade of the 21st century that the executive branch of the federal government of the American republic, the permanent president of the United States, has Article II of the US Constitution power to pardon oneself. In doing so, these supposedly educated and knowledgeable men and women, considered in most cases to be celebrities, are affirmed in their claims by a large following among their followers, which includes a large number of men and women over the age of eighteen years that they are eligible to vote. However, are these experts and commentators correct in their assumptions? These experts have obviously read, and routinely quote, what the honest framers wrote in Article II, Section II on presidential powers, and the dictates of the only definitive commentary essays on the details of the US Constitution. , the “Federalist Papers”, written by James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, in 1787, before the ratification of the United States Constitution. However, like the generalized power and the advice provided by the Drafters in Article I, Section VIII to the legislative branch of the republic that requires Congress to enact laws that are only “necessary and appropriate” for the implementation of the powers specific and exclusive legislative provisions set forth in Article I, Section VIII, which, since 1790, have been erroneously and extravagantly interpreted as laws that are “convenient and popular,” the President’s generalized power to pardon in Article II, Section II, Clause I, “…and shall have the power to grant pardons and pardons for crimes against the United States, except in cases of impeachment” has been misleadingly interpreted to mean what it was not intended to mean.
The honest framers of the United States Constitution were many of the same wise and prudent men who had understood the First and Second Continental Congresses, who had presided over the Revolutionary War, proclaimed the Declaration of Independence in the creation of a new nation, and subsequently forged the Articles of Confederation. These men were not stupid and prone to flights of fancy and illogical assumptions. Their sanity had been tested and proven, for they had already been up against a bloody British king, George III, who had arrogantly assumed that he, as dictator, could do no wrong, and that if he had, he might have. waved his royal shield. he wand in the royal style of it and cleared himself of all blame. In other words, George III presumed that he was above the law, because he blurred justice and natural law. The British Parliament had been forced to accept all the adolescent whims of superiority of the boy king. In other words, King George III had the power to forgive himself for any wrongdoing, and this was something the framers of the Constitution loathed. For that reason, and for reasons of justice and law, the framers placed in Article II, Section II of the US Constitution a restriction on the clemency power of a US President. First, a president could not forgive himself. Why? The very specific warning regarding impeachment cases made it very clear that federal officials who could only be removed from office by impeachment, such as presidents, vice presidents, federal judges, etc. could not be forgiven for his crimes before or after. the impeachment process took place while they were still in office. Since a US president, while in office, cannot be removed except through the process of impeachment, it is very clear that the president cannot forgive himself. Presidents of the United States can only grant pardons to criminals accused, tried, and convicted of crimes against the United States, who were exempt from impeachment.
In the very absurd case of President Richard Nixon, who quite obviously committed serious crimes, based on the evidence presented against him, and would likely have been charged and convicted by the federal government after he resigned the presidency, President Gerald Ford illegally pardoned to his predecessor. Nixon had been charged but not convicted of his alleged crimes. Therefore, Nixon’s pardon should have been based on crimes he would have been convicted of if he had been indicted by a federal grand jury, arrested, and tried in federal court after his resignation. A President of the United States cannot pardon a person based solely on accusations. Just as the First US Congress had allowed President George Washington to issue the first unconstitutional executive order, ordering the construction of a federal mint, rather than reprimand him for going against the constitutional separation of powers , Congress and most of the people just sat by and allowed Ford to illegally pardon Nixon; and while Ford acted illegally against the letter of the Constitution of the United States, the spirit of John Adams cried out from the grave that “the American republic is a nation of laws, and not of men.”
There is also another matter of sheer common sense that applies to the full understanding that a President of the United States cannot reasonably forgive himself. No person in an executive position in government should have the authority to pardon himself. Such deleterious power is what usually resides in the portfolio of a tyrant or dictator. Common sense dictates this reasoning. It has long been established in state law that state governors do not have the state constitutional power to pardon themselves, placing themselves above the law, and state governors are what the presidents of the United States are to government. federal. There is even historical precedent for asserting that 19th and 20th century American presidents charged with serious crimes have not sought, or even considered, an Article II, Section II power to pardon themselves. In the first presidential impeachment case, President Andrew Johnson, who replaced Abraham Lincoln after he was assassinated, never considered a pardon for himself, and Congress never considered the issue. If you scrutinize the detailed historical record of legislative events in 1868, impeachment was the only constitutional means of removing a sitting president, and Andrew Johnson accepted the full weight of impeachment and was acquitted at trial, the May 28, 1968. , by the United States Senate by a single vote. The second and most recent attempt to impeach a president, the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, began successfully in December 1998 and ended with an acquittal by the United States Senate in February 1999. During that period, neither Clinton, Neither a lawyer nor his inner circle of legal advisers had ever contemplated a self-pardon, and history reveals that Clinton was extremely concerned about a sentencing vote in the Senate.
The United States Constitution remains a fragile and delicate document of federalism and ordered liberty through the proper maintenance of its established rules, processes, and procedures. That the legislative, executive, and judicial rules, processes, and procedures of the glorious US Constitution have been dramatically and pragmatically changed in its implementation without the amendment process during the 20th century is true and factual. The way those rules, processes, and procedures were understood in 1790 is hardly the way they are understood and applied in 2018, and people wonder what has happened to the government and economy of the American republic. The reading of the pardon power of Article II, Section II of a US president by designing feds and the foolish assumptions evoked in the minds of those pragmatists that presidents have the power to pardon themselves is a good example of these creepy changes. as it can be brought to the immediate light of day.
As has been redundantly established during the previous twelve months of special tax investigation, President Donald Trump has not made any mistake, as progressive liberal Democrats misleadingly claim. Instead, the progressive Democrats who impeach President Trump have been shown to be fully complicit in colluding with the Russians by using the Obama Justice Department and the FBI to unlawfully undermine presidential candidate Donald Trump’s campaign and upset victory in the 2017 presidential election. Thus, President Trump would have no reason to pursue an unconstitutional effort to pardon himself, to catch up with Barack Obama, who issued, with impunity, numerous illegal executive orders to circumvent the process. constitutional legislature.
To ensure that unlawful misinterpretations of the United States Constitution are censured and prohibited, a constitutional convention of the States, under the power given to the States by the Framers in Article V of the United States Constitution, must be convened by the authority of two-thirds of the state legislatures for the purpose of proposing new amendments to the U.S. Constitution and repealing certain others, by whose actions the intent of the honest framers would be indelibly set in stone, then and for always, in order to restore what has been desecrated by pragmatic men and women who have sought to undermine the economic, financial, and governmental rules, processes, and procedures of the United States Constitution. That this can be done very soon is my humble prayer.