Cruz on Trump's ability to pardon himself: "..................................."

[Crumpets]

A reporter asked Ted Cruz if Trump had the constitutional authority to pardon himself. At least he thought carefully about his answer before sidestepping the question:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ted-cruz-speechless-for-18-seconds-after-question/vi-AAyefZh?ocid=spartanntp

[junior chįmp]

''Principled Conservatism"...the Lyin Ted edition

Ted Cruz: I will not be a “servile puppy dog” for Donald Trump. Jul 21, 2016

[Fuzzy Bear]

The biased panel on CNN slept through the 1970s.

This issue was discussed back then, during Watergate.  There was significant support for the idea that if Nixon pardoned himself, it would stand.  There would be a massive outcry, and (perhaps) a move to amend the Constitution on that score, but the pardon itself would stand.

What would be the basis for denying such a pardon?  Where did the Framers indicate that their intent was to prohibit that?  Impeachment and a Senate trial were the mechanisms designed to get rid of a rotten apple of a President, and they go beyond the realm of the power to Pardon.  You can't pardon your way out of impeachment and a Senate trial.

[SteveRogers]

The biased panel on CNN slept through the 1970s.

This issue was discussed back then, during Watergate.  There was significant support for the idea that if Nixon pardoned himself, it would stand.  There would be a massive outcry, and (perhaps) a move to amend the Constitution on that score, but the pardon itself would stand.

What would be the basis for denying such a pardon?  Where did the Framers indicate that their intent was to prohibit that?  Impeachment and a Senate trial were the mechanisms designed to get rid of a rotten apple of a President, and they go beyond the realm of the power to Pardon.  You can't pardon your way out of impeachment and a Senate trial.

If the President literally murdered someone, impeachment alone obviously wouldn’t be a satisfactory remedy.

[The Mikado]

I think that, legally, Trump's argument might well stand even if he did murder someone.

That's not to say that I think that situation is OK. I think that Madison and company clearly f**ked up by leaving the pardon power as broad as it is, and that an Amendment might be in order to fix that. As is, though, even if it's ruled that Trump technically can't pardon himself, he could just exercise his 25th Amendment right to hand over the powers of the Presidency to Acting President Pence for one hour, have Acting President Pence pardon him, and resume the presidency at the end of that hour.

[GMantis]

The biased panel on CNN slept through the 1970s.

This issue was discussed back then, during Watergate.  There was significant support for the idea that if Nixon pardoned himself, it would stand.  There would be a massive outcry, and (perhaps) a move to amend the Constitution on that score, but the pardon itself would stand.

Not really. Nixon was advised that he couldn't pardon himself.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As the article states, "no one may be a judge in his own case".

[Fuzzy Bear]

The biased panel on CNN slept through the 1970s.

This issue was discussed back then, during Watergate.  There was significant support for the idea that if Nixon pardoned himself, it would stand.  There would be a massive outcry, and (perhaps) a move to amend the Constitution on that score, but the pardon itself would stand.

Not really. Nixon was advised that he couldn't pardon himself.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As the article states, "no one may be a judge in his own case".

You can't pardon your way out of impeachment and a Senate trial.  No one is arguing that.  What Trump CAN pardon himself out of is criminal prosecution.  Any President can. 

During Watergate, another issue discussed was the question of what was meant by "High Crimes and Misdemeanors".  Nixon insisted he could be impeached and removed only for a crime.  Rep. Peter Rodino (D-NJ) the House Judiciary Committee Chair, stated that a President could be impeached for dishonoring the office.  There was a widespread belief then that a President could be impeached for something less than a crime.

And Trump isn't the "Judge" in his own impeachment case; the Senate is.  The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides, but he has very little real power; he's not "God in the courtroom" as a criminal judge can be in a criminal trial.

[IndustrialJustice]

That is Constitutional Law Genius Ted Cruz to you, sir.

[Koharu]

I think it's pretty obvious that one is not able to pardon oneself, but I'm apparently a weirdo on that front. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Let's take a look at the text, shall we?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, the pardons are shoved in with the commander and chief stuff. While the text still leaves things quite broad, it's obvious by the context that it's in relation to crimes against the US as a whole, most likely intended for desertion, treason, or other capital offenses. However, even leaving the context of location alone and taking that second half of the sentence on its own, "offenses against the United States" is more limited than just any old crime. A murder is not an offense against the United States, it is an offense against an individual/family.

Of course, we've also interpreted this now to specifically mean federal crimes, and that interpretation would still apply. However, murder and the like is usually not a federal crime, and thus couldn't be pardoned. His possible crimes being investigated by Mueller, however, do have the unique distinction of being crimes against the United States. But, if one considers that one cannot pardon anything relating to impeachment, and Congress is expected by the constitution to remove the President for crimes against the United States. See here:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which, of course, indicates that any crime the president could pardon would be covered by impeachment if committed by the president. So if it's something that he could pardon, it's also something that he should be impeached for, and pardoning doesn't apply in situations of impeachment. While the text doesn't address this (because it's common sense), it's blatantly obvious that one cannot pardon oneself prior to being found guilty, because one is assumed innocent until proven guilty, and even if you did attempt to pardon yourself, it would still either be A) a crime not covered by impeachment and thus also not pardonable by the president, or B) a crime covered by impeachment and thus the pardon would be invalid.

So, yeah. If Trump did something like murder someone or steal from someone, those wouldn't be "crimes against the United States." We have this weird thing going on with Federal vs local jurisdictions, but a murder in the White House would still be a murder, and if we're going to consider Federal crimes as all "crimes against the United States," then that murder would be an impeachable offense and you cannot pardon for it, or it is not a crime against the United States, and he can't pardon it because it's beyond his jurisdiction.

So all this convoluted talking I'm doing is to say that it's, again, blatantly obvious the president cannot pardon himself and it was never intended to be an option. While I don't think Ford should have done what he did, I believe the Founders would find that completely kosher, while they'd be rolling their eyes at everyone implying a sitting president can pardon himself, especially prior to being convicted of something, in which case there's literally nothing to pardon.

[SteveRogers]

That is Constitutional Law Genius Ted Cruz to you, sir.

But but but someone on this forum told me that they heard from OJ Simpson’s lawyer that Ted Cruz was the smartest person ever in the whole world!

[The Mikado]

I think it's pretty obvious that one is not able to pardon oneself, but I'm apparently a weirdo on that front. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Let's take a look at the text, shall we?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, the pardons are shoved in with the commander and chief stuff. While the text still leaves things quite broad, it's obvious by the context that it's in relation to crimes against the US as a whole, most likely intended for desertion, treason, or other capital offenses. However, even leaving the context of location alone and taking that second half of the sentence on its own, "offenses against the United States" is more limited than just any old crime. A murder is not an offense against the United States, it is an offense against an individual/family.

Of course, we've also interpreted this now to specifically mean federal crimes, and that interpretation would still apply. However, murder and the like is usually not a federal crime, and thus couldn't be pardoned. His possible crimes being investigated by Mueller, however, do have the unique distinction of being crimes against the United States. But, if one considers that one cannot pardon anything relating to impeachment, and Congress is expected by the constitution to remove the President for crimes against the United States. See here:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which, of course, indicates that any crime the president could pardon would be covered by impeachment if committed by the president. So if it's something that he could pardon, it's also something that he should be impeached for, and pardoning doesn't apply in situations of impeachment. While the text doesn't address this (because it's common sense), it's blatantly obvious that one cannot pardon oneself prior to being found guilty, because one is assumed innocent until proven guilty, and even if you did attempt to pardon yourself, it would still either be A) a crime not covered by impeachment and thus also not pardonable by the president, or B) a crime covered by impeachment and thus the pardon would be invalid.

So, yeah. If Trump did something like murder someone or steal from someone, those wouldn't be "crimes against the United States." We have this weird thing going on with Federal vs local jurisdictions, but a murder in the White House would still be a murder, and if we're going to consider Federal crimes as all "crimes against the United States," then that murder would be an impeachable offense and you cannot pardon for it, or it is not a crime against the United States, and he can't pardon it because it's beyond his jurisdiction.

So all this convoluted talking I'm doing is to say that it's, again, blatantly obvious the president cannot pardon himself and it was never intended to be an option. While I don't think Ford should have done what he did, I believe the Founders would find that completely kosher, while they'd be rolling their eyes at everyone implying a sitting president can pardon himself, especially prior to being convicted of something, in which case there's literally nothing to pardon.

So he exercises the 25th, makes Pence President for one hour, Acting President Pence pardons him, and Trump resumes office.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I think it's pretty obvious that one is not able to pardon oneself, but I'm apparently a weirdo on that front. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Let's take a look at the text, shall we?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, the pardons are shoved in with the commander and chief stuff. While the text still leaves things quite broad, it's obvious by the context that it's in relation to crimes against the US as a whole, most likely intended for desertion, treason, or other capital offenses. However, even leaving the context of location alone and taking that second half of the sentence on its own, "offenses against the United States" is more limited than just any old crime. A murder is not an offense against the United States, it is an offense against an individual/family.

Of course, we've also interpreted this now to specifically mean federal crimes, and that interpretation would still apply. However, murder and the like is usually not a federal crime, and thus couldn't be pardoned. His possible crimes being investigated by Mueller, however, do have the unique distinction of being crimes against the United States. But, if one considers that one cannot pardon anything relating to impeachment, and Congress is expected by the constitution to remove the President for crimes against the United States. See here:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which, of course, indicates that any crime the president could pardon would be covered by impeachment if committed by the president. So if it's something that he could pardon, it's also something that he should be impeached for, and pardoning doesn't apply in situations of impeachment. While the text doesn't address this (because it's common sense), it's blatantly obvious that one cannot pardon oneself prior to being found guilty, because one is assumed innocent until proven guilty, and even if you did attempt to pardon yourself, it would still either be A) a crime not covered by impeachment and thus also not pardonable by the president, or B) a crime covered by impeachment and thus the pardon would be invalid.

So, yeah. If Drumpf did something like murder someone or steal from someone, those wouldn't be "crimes against the United States." We have this weird thing going on with Federal vs local jurisdictions, but a murder in the White House would still be a murder, and if we're going to consider Federal crimes as all "crimes against the United States," then that murder would be an impeachable offense and you cannot pardon for it, or it is not a crime against the United States, and he can't pardon it because it's beyond his jurisdiction.

So all this convoluted talking I'm doing is to say that it's, again, blatantly obvious the president cannot pardon himself and it was never intended to be an option. While I don't think Ford should have done what he did, I believe the Founders would find that completely kosher, while they'd be rolling their eyes at everyone implying a sitting president can pardon himself, especially prior to being convicted of something, in which case there's literally nothing to pardon.

So he exercises the 25th, makes Pence President for one hour, Acting President Pence pardons him, and Drumpf resumes office.

Don't give him any more ideas!

[The Mikado]

I think it's pretty obvious that one is not able to pardon oneself, but I'm apparently a weirdo on that front. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Let's take a look at the text, shall we?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, the pardons are shoved in with the commander and chief stuff. While the text still leaves things quite broad, it's obvious by the context that it's in relation to crimes against the US as a whole, most likely intended for desertion, treason, or other capital offenses. However, even leaving the context of location alone and taking that second half of the sentence on its own, "offenses against the United States" is more limited than just any old crime. A murder is not an offense against the United States, it is an offense against an individual/family.

Of course, we've also interpreted this now to specifically mean federal crimes, and that interpretation would still apply. However, murder and the like is usually not a federal crime, and thus couldn't be pardoned. His possible crimes being investigated by Mueller, however, do have the unique distinction of being crimes against the United States. But, if one considers that one cannot pardon anything relating to impeachment, and Congress is expected by the constitution to remove the President for crimes against the United States. See here:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which, of course, indicates that any crime the president could pardon would be covered by impeachment if committed by the president. So if it's something that he could pardon, it's also something that he should be impeached for, and pardoning doesn't apply in situations of impeachment. While the text doesn't address this (because it's common sense), it's blatantly obvious that one cannot pardon oneself prior to being found guilty, because one is assumed innocent until proven guilty, and even if you did attempt to pardon yourself, it would still either be A) a crime not covered by impeachment and thus also not pardonable by the president, or B) a crime covered by impeachment and thus the pardon would be invalid.

So, yeah. If Drumpf did something like murder someone or steal from someone, those wouldn't be "crimes against the United States." We have this weird thing going on with Federal vs local jurisdictions, but a murder in the White House would still be a murder, and if we're going to consider Federal crimes as all "crimes against the United States," then that murder would be an impeachable offense and you cannot pardon for it, or it is not a crime against the United States, and he can't pardon it because it's beyond his jurisdiction.

So all this convoluted talking I'm doing is to say that it's, again, blatantly obvious the president cannot pardon himself and it was never intended to be an option. While I don't think Ford should have done what he did, I believe the Founders would find that completely kosher, while they'd be rolling their eyes at everyone implying a sitting president can pardon himself, especially prior to being convicted of something, in which case there's literally nothing to pardon.

So he exercises the 25th, makes Pence President for one hour, Acting President Pence pardons him, and Drumpf resumes office.

Don't give him any more ideas!

Please do not change my quotes to say something I didn't say. People might think that I use Oliver's stupid gimmick namechange.