• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the President of the United States Have the Authority to Pardon Themself?

Should the President Have the Authority to Pardon Themself?

  • Yes, the president has this constitutional authority.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    30
I don't think the President can pardon himself and should not have the power to do so. The power to deal with a President acting unlawfully is constitutionally given only to our elected representatives in Congress to do or to the people at the ballot box should the President run for re-election.

I do support the Presidential pardon, however, most especially in today's polarized and hateful and vindictive political environment. Those targeted by the opposition for political purposes for litigation when, if they were not supportive of the President or a political party would never have been targeted, should of course not suffer unfair consequences for their political beliefs. The risk we take allowing a President such power is that he will use it to benefit friends and cronies who should suffer consequences for bad deeds, and we have seen that happen. But it is a small risk.

Do you have any examples of someone imprisoned for political reasons? Also there is an appeals system to appeal to higher courts if you think the verdict is unjust, and is already used too much. The presidential pardon can also be used in these partisan times to free people who are guilty of real crimes, like Nixon who was pardoned when anyone else would be in jail. It is a huge risk giving someone power over our entire military and the ability of pardoning anyone on his staff of any corruption or abuse of power. This is the single largest threat to our democracy and is written right into our constitution. I think a presidential pardon is fine as long as it is done with a majority vote by the Supreme Court who is the final authority in judicial affairs.
 
Anyone who answers yes to this is taking the official position that the President is above the law. And if you believe that then your believe in fascism over Democracy, pure and simple.

What law or laws did he break?
 
So the bolded is your suggested solution or are you claiming these consequences are already defined in our constitution?
That's how it already works. An impeachment isn't an automatic guilty.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
It's a check on judiciary - the only check on the judiciary post conviction - and as such is necessary given separation of powers. It's also a way for the people, through the president, to offer forgiveness to someone who was legitimately convicted.

If you want a check on the judiciary, then allow the pardon along with a majority vote from congress. Don't just allow a single man to be able to over-ride our judiciary. I also don't see the need for forgiveness for a single person when other people are doing real time for the exact same crime. Its unjust and unfair.
 
What law or laws did he break?

Whichever crimes he felt he would need to pardon himself for. (Did you not see the thread title?)
 
Last edited:
Whichever laws he felt he would need to pardon himself for. (Did you not see the thread title?)

yes I did but I wanted you to be more pacific on what crimes he committed. By your above response I don't think you can.
 
Do you have any examples of someone imprisoned for political reasons? Also there is an appeals system to appeal to higher courts if you think the verdict is unjust, and is already used too much. The presidential pardon can also be used in these partisan times to free people who are guilty of real crimes, like Nixon who was pardoned when anyone else would be in jail. It is a huge risk giving someone power over our entire military and the ability of pardoning anyone on his staff of any corruption or abuse of power. This is the single largest threat to our democracy and is written right into our constitution. I think a presidential pardon is fine as long as it is done with a majority vote by the Supreme Court who is the final authority in judicial affairs.

Nobody should have to impoverish himself/herself to deal with a politically motivated accusation/indictment. Certainly George Papadopoulos or Michael Flynn would never have been interviewed by the FBI or been accused of lying to the FBI if they had not been associated in some way with President Trump and/or his campaign. Neither are accused of any crime other than giving false statements to the FBI, but both have been forced to spend most of their personal net worth because of this. Neither deserve any jail time and certainly should receive Presidential pardons. It was right for President Bush to commute Scooter Libby's sentence as he too was caught up in a politically motivated vendetta against Bush and committed no crime other than most likely inadvertently giving false testimony to the FBI.
 
Where in the constitution is it mandated that SCOTUS review any presidential pardon attempt?

How can we be assured the president will be held accountable when his own party can kill the impeachment process in one of the chambers?

Sorry - still no accountability.

I'm sure any president whom pardons himself, a lawsuit would follow which in time would be taken up by the SCOTUS. What they do with it, hear it or decline to hear it or rule on it is for the SCOTUS to decide. As for the vote in the senate, there were enough Republican senators on board to convict Nixon of impeachment. That is why he resigned. He had no hope.

For impeachment to work, the majority of Americans must be behind the effort. They were with Nixon, they weren't with Bill Clinton. Clinton's impeachment process was a complete waste of money, energy and time. The 2/3rds threshold in the senate is to stop a political vendetta by one party to remove a duly elected president for purely political reasons. With Nixon and Watergate, there was little hint of a political vendetta against him. With Bill Clinton, that political vendetta was all over the place. Besides, the majority of Americans didn't want Bill removed even if he had committed a felony. Impeachment is more of a political process than a legal one as occurs in our court system.
 
yes I did but I wanted you to be more pacific on what crimes he committed. By your above response I don't think you can.

I think I'm being quite pacific. If you want to see me be less pacific then you should try being ruder to me.
 
yes I did but I wanted you to be more pacific on what crimes he committed. By your above response I don't think you can.

I can be waaaaaay more pacific:

pacific-ocean-map-1969.jpg
 
I think I'm being quite pacific. If you want to see me be less pacific then you should try being ruder to me.

That sounds like an invitation. Are you a masochist? I'm not into that kind of thing, but you should be able to find a couple of takers now that you've made it public.
 
That sounds like an invitation. Are you a masochist? I'm not into that kind of thing, but you should be able to find a couple of takers now that you've made it public.

People are rude to me on this site all the time. If nobody on this forum was rude to me at least once over the course of a day then I'd have to figure I was doing something wrong.
 
Simple question, should either a republican or democratic president have the authority to pardon himself and if he attempts it what should be the consequences?

Yes the president should be able to pardon themselves with zero consequences

No. No one is above the law and any attempt to circumvent should result in the president's immediate removal from office

Other - explain

Other. Yes the president does have that constitutional authority but they shouldn’t
 
That's how it already works. An impeachment isn't an automatic guilty.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

So you're saying there's no guarantee the president will face any consequences for breaking the law. As you said, an impeachment isn't an automatically guilty.
 
In your opinion, with which I agree.



But in this thread we're talking specifically about the president trying to pardon himself for a crime he's been convicted of. If there are other things you think the president should or should not have the authority to do please feel free to start your own poll, my friend.

It's then something of an academic discussion because likely a sitting President can't be tried for a crime. He'd have to be impeached and removed from office first at which point he is no longer in a position to pardon himself. Granted
the idea of trying the President for a criminal offense while in office has never been tried so we don't know for sure but there's good reason to believe that it can't be done.
 
Other. Yes the president does have that constitutional authority but they shouldn’t

And what should be the consequences for any president who tries it?
 
If you want a check on the judiciary, then allow the pardon along with a majority vote from congress. Don't just allow a single man to be able to over-ride our judiciary. I also don't see the need for forgiveness for a single person when other people are doing real time for the exact same crime. Its unjust and unfair.

The legislative check on the judiciary is the fact that they can write laws criminalizing/decriminalizing behavior and set sentencing guidelines. Every branch has a check on every other branch.

The pardon power is meant to remedy what the executive (all governors also have pardon power for state crimes, though sometimes the power is shared with others) sees as miscarriages of justice. Can it be misused? Yes. But I'd argue that over it's history - the pardon power goes back to the Magna Carta it's likely done far more good than harm, especially under a legal system that thinks that jailing the innocent is a bigger sin than letting the guilty go.
 
Simple question, should either a republican or democratic president have the authority to pardon himself and if he attempts it what should be the consequences?

Yes the president should be able to pardon themselves with zero consequences

No. No one is above the law and any attempt to circumvent should result in the president's immediate removal from office

Other - explain

IMO no president, or anyone else for that matter, should pardon anyone. Pardoning is bs.
 
So you're saying there's no guarantee the president will face any consequences for breaking the law. As you said, an impeachment isn't an automatically guilty.
An impeachment is the equal to being indicted by a grand jury. The House first passes the articles of impeachment which is what brings the president to "trial". If there is enough evidence, then the Senate finds them guilty and they are immediately removed from the office. If they are not found guilty, as Bill was, then they continue in the office. And here's the kicker, Bill was shown to have committed perjury, but the Senate at the time still voted not guilty. Of course he was impeached under accusation of perjury either, and no one felt it worth trying for a second impeachment.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
Should the President of the United States Have the Authority to Pardon Themself?
No.

Hell, no!

Hell "effing" no!
 
Back
Top Bottom