In so doing, these supposedly educated, and educated, women and men, regarded in most cases as celebrities, are affirmed in their contentions by huge followings of the fans, comprising a great many of the women and men over eighteen years old that are eligible to vote. None the less, are these pundits and commentators right in their presumptions? Yet, exactly like the generalized power and caveat supplied by the Framers in Article I, Section VIII into the republic’s Legislative branch requiring the Congress to legislate laws which are only”necessary and proper” to the implementation of the particular and exclusive legislative powers set forth in Article I, Section VIII, which has, since 1790, been wrongly and flippantly translated to mean, rather, laws that are”convenient and popular,” the generalized power of the President to pardon in Article II, Section II, Clause I,”… and he shall have the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment” has been speciously interpreted to mean what it wasn’t intended to mean.
The honored Framers of the U.S. Constitution were many of the exact same wise and sensible men who had included 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 forged the Articles of Confederation. These men weren’t dumb and prone to flights of fantasy and illogical presumptions. To put it differently, George III presumed that he was above the law, because he flouted justice and natural law. The British Parliament was made to go along with all the boy-king’s adolescent whims of superiority. For that reason, and for the reasons of law and justice, the Framers placed in the U.S. Constitution’s Article II, Section II a restriction on the pardoning power of a U.S. President. In the first place, a President couldn’t pardon himself. Why? The very specific caveat regarding cases of impeachment made it very clear that national officers who may only be removed from their offices by impeachment, such as presidents, vice-presidents, national judges, etc. could not be pardoned for their crimes before, or after. the impeachment proceedings were conducted while they were still in office. Since a U.S. President, while in office, cannot be removed except through the impeachment process, it is extremely clear that the President cannot pardon himself. Pardons can only be given by U.S. Presidents to felons indicted, 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 clearly committed high-crimes, based upon the evidence adduced against him, and would have likely been federally indicted and convicted following his resignation from the presidency, President Gerald Ford pardoned his predecessor illegally. Nixon had been accused, but not convicted of his alleged crimes. Therefore, the pardon for Nixon should have been based upon offenses for which he would have been convicted had been indicted by a federal grand jury, arrested, and tried in federal court following his resignation. A U.S. President can’t pardon a person based only on accusations. Just like the First U.S. Congress had permitted President George Washington to issue the first unconstitutional executive order, ordering the construction of a federal mint, instead of reprimanding him for going against the Constitutional separation of powers, Congress and the majority of the individuals simply sat back and allowed Ford to illegally pardon Nixon; and all the while Ford was proceeding contrary to the letter of the U.S. Constitution, the spirit of John Adams was crying out from the grave that”the American republic republic is a nation of laws, rather than of men.”
There’s also another matter of pure common sense that applies in thoroughly understanding that a U.S. President cannot reasonably pardon himself. No person in an executive government role should have the ability to pardon himself. Such a deleterious power is one that usually resides in the port folio of a tyrant or dictator. Common sense dictates this reasoning. It’s been long established in State law that State governors don’t have the State constitutional power to pardon themselves, putting themselves above the law, and State governors are exactly what the U.S. Presidents are to the federal government. In the very first instance of presidential impeachment, President Andrew Johnson, who replaced Abraham Lincoln after he was assassinated, never considered a pardon for himself, and the issue wasn’t considered by Congress. If the comprehensive historical record of the legislative acts of 1868 is inspected, the process of impeachment was the only constitutional way of removing a sitting President, and Andrew Johnson accepted the full brunt of this impeachment and was acquitted in trial, on May 28, 1968, by the U.S. Senate by one vote. The next and most recent attempt to impeach a President, the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, was successfully started in December of 1998 and ended-up with a U.S. Senate acquittal in February of 1999. During that time-frame, neither Clinton, a lawyer, nor his inner circle of legal advisors had never contemplated a self-pardon, and history reveals that Clinton was extremely worried about a conviction vote in the Senate.
The U.S. Constitution remains fragile and delicate document of federalism and of their freedom and freedom ordained through the proper maintenance of its established rules, procedures, and procedures. That the legislative, executive, and judicial principles, processes, and procedures of the glorious U.S. Constitution have been egregiously and pragmatically changed in execution with no modification procedure over the 20th Century is factual and true. The way those rules, procedures, and procedures were understood in 1790 is the way they are understood and implemented in 2018, and people wonder what’s happened to the government and economy of the American republic. The reading of this Article II, Section II pardoning power of a U.S. President by designing feds and the cockeyed presumptions conjured-up in the minds of these pragmatic individuals that Presidents have the power to pardon themselves is as good of an example of those lurid changes as may be brought to the immediate light of day.
As was established redundantly during the previous twelve months of special prosecutorial investigation, President Donald Trump has done no wrong as speciously alleged by the innovative liberal Democrats. Hence, President Trump would have no reason to look for an unconstitutional attempt to pardon himself, to place himself on the same level with Barack Obama, who issued, with impunity, numerous unlawful executive orders to bypass the Constitutional Legislative procedure.
In order to make sure that prohibited misinterpretations of the U.S. Constitution are censured and prohibited, a Constitutional convention of the States, under the power given to States by the Framers in Article V of the U.S. Constitution, should be convened by the jurisdiction of two-thirds of the State legislatures so as to propose new amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and to repeal certain others, by which actions the intent of the honored Framers will be set indelibly in rock, then and forever, so as to restore what has been desecrated by pragmatic women and men who have sought to undermine the economic, financial, and governmental principles, procedures, and procedures of the U.S. Constitution. That this might be carried out really soon is my humble prayer.
In a republic comprised of over 312 million citizens, with an eligible electorate of over 150 million U.S. citizens, there are roughly as many aberrant minorities and followings as you may imagine that believe and practice, according to their own personal freedom, immorality and legal, but disgusting, reprobacy. The USA is a complex society where good and decent people can bask in the sunshine of moral and virtuous endeavors, and reap the rewards of such pursuits; while evil men and women freely plot and conspire to commit offenses against those good and decent people and their land.
Mark Levin, with whom I mainly agree, has stated that the majority of the U.S. citizens of 21st Century America do not know what freedom actually means; and I wholeheartedly agree with him on that point. Liberty is not statism, or government control over the daily lives of Americans. Liberty, as Henry Ward Beecher so aptly stated, is the soul’s right to breathe, and the essence of American independence lies in a proper rendering of the text of the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights, which were derived from that terrific Declaration of Independence, which declared the natural rights of all free men and women, and the content of the much earlier document that place in order English justice and common law, the Magna Carta. Liberty cannot be adequately expressed in words, but in the refreshing sense that the human spirit is free from government suppression.