In so doing, these supposedly educated, and educated, men and women, regarded in most cases as actors, are affirmed in their contentions by huge followings of the supporters, comprising a great many of the men and women over eighteen years old who are qualified to vote. None the less, are those pundits and commentators correct in their presumptions? These pundits have clearly read, and routinely quotation, what the honored Framers wrote in Article II, Section II about Presidential powers, and the dicta from the sole definitive commentary essays about the specifics of the U.S. Constitution, the”Federalist Papers,” written by James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton, in 1787, prior to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Yet, just 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 execution 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”popular and convenient,” the generalized power of the President to pardon in Article II, Section II, Clause I,”… and he will have the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment” has been speciously translated to mean what it wasn’t meant to mean.
The honored Framers of the U.S. Constitution were many of the same wise and sensible men who had comprised the First and Second Continental Congresses, who had presided over the Revolutionary War, proclaimed the Declaration of Independence in the introduction of a new country, 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 had been forced to go along with all of the boy-king’s adolescent whims of excellence. In other words, King George III had the power to pardon himself from any, and all, wrongdoings, and this was something which the Framers had despised. For that reason, and for the reasons of law and justice, the Framers placed into the U.S. Constitution’s Article II, Section II a limitation on the pardoning power of a U.S. President. In the first place, a President couldn’t pardon himself. Why? The very specific caveat concerning cases of impeachment made it quite clear that federal officers who may simply 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. Since a U.S. President, while in office, cannot be removed except through the impeachment process, it’s very clear that the President can’t pardon himself. Pardons can only be given by U.S. Presidents to felons indicted, tried, and convicted of crimes against the USA, who were exempt from impeachment.
In the very absurd case of President Richard Nixon, who very obviously committed high-crimes, based upon the evidence adduced against him, and would have likely been indicted and convicted after his resignation from the presidency, President Gerald Ford pardoned his predecessor illegally. 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 cannot pardon a person based only on accusations. Just like the very first U.S. Congress had allowed President George Washington to issue the initial unconstitutional executive order, ordering the construction of a national 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 pardon Nixon; and all the while Ford was illegally proceeding against the letter of the U.S. Constitution, the soul of John Adams was crying out in the tomb that”the American republic republic is a country of laws, and not of men.”
There’s also an additional thing of pure common sense that applies in thoroughly understanding a U.S. President cannot reasonably pardon himself. No person in an executive government function 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 has been long established in State law that State governors don’t have the State constitutional power to pardon themselves, placing themselves above the law, and State governors are exactly what the U.S. Presidents are to the federal government. There are even historical precedents to confirm that 19th and 20th Century U.S. Presidents accused of high-crimes have not sought for, or even considered, an Article II, Section II power to pardon themselves. In the very first case of presidential impeachment, President Andrew Johnson, who replaced Abraham Lincoln after he was assassinated, never believed a pardon for himself, and the issue was never considered by Congress. If the detailed historical record of the legislative events of 1868 is scrutinized, the process of impeachment was the only constitutional means 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 a single vote. The next and most recent effort to impeach a President, the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, was successfully started in December of 1998 and ended-up using a U.S. Senate acquittal in February of 1999. During that time-frame, neither Clinton, a lawyer, nor his inner circle of legal advisers had never considered a self-pardon, and history shows that Clinton was extremely worried about a conviction vote in the Senate.
The U.S. Constitution remains to be fragile and delicate record of federalism and of their freedom and liberty ordained through the proper care of its established rules, processes, 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 without the amendment process over the 20th Century is true and factual. The way those principles, procedures, and procedures were understood in 1790 is the way they are understood and applied in 2018, and people wonder what’s happened to the government and economy of the American republic. The reading of the Article II, Section II pardoning power of a U.S. President by designing feds and the cockeyed presumptions conjured-up from the minds of those pragmatic people 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 has been 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 process.
To be able to ensure that prohibited misinterpretations of the U.S. Constitution are censured and banned, 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 authority 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 activities the intent of this honored Framers will be set indelibly in stone, then and forever, in order to restore what was desecrated by pragmatic women and men who have sought to undermine the economic, financial, and governmental rules, procedures, and procedures of the U.S. Constitution. That this may be carried out very soon is my humble prayer.
In a republic comprised of over 312 million taxpayers, with a qualified electorate of over 150 million U.S. citizens, there are about as many aberrant minorities and followings as one may imagine that believe and practice, according to their personal freedom, immorality and legal, but disgusting, reprobacy. The United States 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 wicked men and women freely plot and conspire to commit crimes against these 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 don’t know what freedom actually means; and I wholeheartedly concur with him on there. 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 basis of American liberty lies in a proper rendering of the text of the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights, that have been derived from this great Declaration of Independence, which declared the natural rights of free women and men, and the content of that much earlier document that place in order English justice and common law, the Magna Carta. Liberty can’t be adequately expressed in words, but in the refreshing feeling that the human spirit is liberated from government suppression. Read, learn, and apply the honored Framers intent in the U.S. Constitution to secure the blessings of liberty for the American People forever.