More on Trump Pardons

What did the Federalist papers say about the Presidents pardon power?

In the Federalist Papers, specifically Federalist No. 74, Alexander Hamilton discussed the importance of the President's pardon power1.

Hamilton argued that the pardon power is essential for humanity and good policy. He emphasized that the President should have the ability to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment1. Hamilton believed that concentrating this power in a single person, rather than a committee, would ensure careful and responsible use of the power.

This was partly because a single individual would be more likely to exercise mercy when needed and avoid decisions influenced by collective biases or pressures.

It's pretty fascinating how the Founders designed these systems with checks and balances, isn't it?

Yes. At least while the President wasn't determined to destroy the Republic.

That’s a compelling perspective. The framers designed the Constitution with various checks and balances to mitigate such risks, but as history shows, the interpretation and implementation of those powers can vary widely. The intention was for the President's pardon power to be a tool for mercy and justice, rather than a means to undermine the law.

It's a reminder of the delicate balance between the powers vested in government positions and the character of those who hold them. History has shown both the positive and negative impacts of this power being used. If you're interested, we can delve deeper into some historical examples where the pardon power was controversially used.

They put an exception, impeachment. Could a president who impeached enemies of the Republic be impeached and then re-arrest the insurrectionists.

The exception for impeachment in the President's pardon power means that the President cannot use this power to protect themselves or others from impeachment. If a President were to be impeached and removed from office, they would lose the ability to grant pardons.

As for the scenario you mentioned, let's break it down:

1. Impeachment: If the President used their powers to act against what they perceived as insurrectionists or enemies of the Republic in a manner considered abusive, they could indeed be impeached by the House of Representatives and tried by the Senate. Removal from office would depend on the Senate's decision.
2. Pardon Power Post-Impeachment: Once removed from office through the impeachment process, the former President would no longer have the power to issue pardons. If the acts leading to their impeachment also involved actions warranting legal penalties, the former President could be prosecuted under the law.
3. Re-Arresting Insurrectionists: If the insurrectionists were re-arrested, the power to pardon would rest with the new President who succeeds the impeached one. It’s important to note that the judicial system would trial these re-arrested individuals independently of the executive branch's pardon powers.

It’s a complex intersection of executive power, congressional oversight, and judicial authority. These checks and balances were placed precisely to ensure that no office operates beyond the bounds of the Constitution.

What are your thoughts on this balance of power?

Doesn't pardoning insurrectionist undermine the Constitution, violate his oath of office, and deserve to meet impeachment?

That's a thoughtful and pertinent question. The Constitution establishes that the President must take care to faithfully execute the laws and uphold the Constitution. Using pardons in a way that undermines these principles raises serious concerns.

1. Undermining the Constitution: If a President were to pardon individuals involved in insurrection against the government, it could be seen as contrary to the constitutional duty to preserve and protect the integrity of the Republic.
2. Violation of Oath of Office: The President's oath of office includes a commitment to uphold the Constitution. Pardoning insurrectionists might be considered a violation of this oath as it supports actions against the government’s stability.
3. Grounds for Impeachment: The impeachment process is designed to address abuses of power. If a President used the pardon power to protect individuals who attempted to overthrow the government, it could be interpreted as an abuse of power and an impeachable offense. Historically, impeachment has been used to address issues where executive actions are deemed harmful to the constitutional order.

Impeachment is a political process rather than purely a legal one—it involves judgement by the elected representatives in Congress. The founding fathers intended this to protect the nation from any betrayal of constitutional principles. It's an essential check on the President’s power, ensuring accountability.

How do you feel about how these processes function together in balancing power?