{"id":6351,"date":"2017-07-30T03:27:49","date_gmt":"2017-07-30T03:27:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/?p=6351"},"modified":"2017-08-12T14:05:30","modified_gmt":"2017-08-12T14:05:30","slug":"no-donald-you-cant-pardon-yourself","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/?p=6351","title":{"rendered":"No Donald, you CAN’T pardon yourself…"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

\u201cAre you telling me that President\u00a0Donald Trump<\/a><\/em>\u00a0can’t<\/strong> just up and pardon himself?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

* \u00a0 * \u00a0 * \u00a0 *<\/p>\n

There’s been a lot of hubbub lately about whether\u00a0President Donald Trump can pardon himself<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The short answer? \u00a0No, he can’t.*<\/p>\n

Why?<\/strong> <\/em>\u00a0The simple answer: \u00a0The idea that a sitting president could murder someone – in cold blood – and then blithely pardon himself,* is patently absurd. \u00a0The idea is so<\/em><\/strong> patently absurd that the\u00a0Founding Fathers<\/a>\u00a0would never have dreamed<\/em>\u00a0<\/strong>that a future president would be so full of himself that he would even think of that idea, let alone implement it.<\/p>\n

Which brings up\u00a0the “legal theory in American courts” known as the\u00a0absurdity doctrine<\/a>:<\/p>\n

The absurdity doctrine is a legal theory in American courts.\u00a0 One type \u2026 called \u201cevaluative absurdity,\u201d arises when a legal provision, despite appropriate spelling and grammar, \u201cmakes no substantive sense.\u201d \u00a0An example would be a statute that mistakenly provided for a\u00a0winning<\/i><\/strong>\u00a0rather than\u00a0losing<\/i><\/strong>\u00a0party to pay the other side\u2019s reasonable attorney\u2019s fees.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u00a0(Emphasis added.)<\/em>\u00a0 \u00a0Thus the Absurdity Doctrine would keep a court of law – a judge – from enforcing a statute that rewarded a\u00a0losing<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0party in a court case. \u00a0(By awarding that party attorney\u2019s fees.)<\/em>\u00a0\u00a0However \u2013 according to Donald Trump \u2013 the Absurdity Doctrine would\u00a0not<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0keep him from committing murder \u2013 or treason \u2013 and then pardoning himself.<\/p>\n

Then there’s\u00a0the long-established legal rule that \u201cno man can be a judge in his own case.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"Natreview.jpg\"In fact, it\u2019s so old that it goes back to the original Latin: \u00a0\u201cNemo iudex in causa sua<\/a><\/em><\/strong>.\u201d \u00a0And even the conservative\u00a0National Review<\/a>\u00a0– as seen at right – has called it that \u201cfamiliar legal principle,\u201d to wit: \u00a0That judges must “remove themselves from cases where their own interest is at stake or their bias will come into play.\u201d<\/p>\n

(Or put another way, what would Donald Trump’s ardent supporters have said if Bill Clinton had tried to pardon himself?)<\/em><\/p>\n

Then there is the fundamental tenet of American law that\u00a0all men are created equal<\/a>. \u00a0The phrase\u00a0has been called the “immortal declaration,'” and also been called the one phrase in the Declaration of Independence<\/a>\u00a0“with the greatest ‘continuing importance.'”<\/p>\n

\"AssociateThen there\u2019s the related idea that\u00a0no man is above the law<\/a>. \u00a0\u00a0(It\u2019s also known as the\u00a0rule of law<\/a>.) \u00a0<\/em>And that’s a rule of law\u00a0which at least one Supreme Court justice has vowed to uphold:<\/p>\n

Supreme Court nominee\u00a0Neil Gorsuch<\/a>\u00a0[ \u2013 he was confirmed on April 7, 2017 \u2013 ] said Tuesday that \u201cno man is above the law\u201d when pressed on whether President Donald Trump could reinstitute torture as a U.S. interrogation method.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So again the comparison: \u00a0According to our newest Supreme Court Justice, Donald Trump could not<\/em> <\/strong>\u201creinstitute torture,\u201d but according to Trump he\u00a0could<\/em>\u00a0<\/strong>murder someone \u2013 or rape a dozen women, or molest a child \u2013 and then pardon himself.<\/p>\n

Which – finally – brings up the legal doctrine of\u00a0equality before the law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

That’s an idea that goes back to the time of the Bible. \u00a0For example\u00a0Deuteronomy 16:19<\/a>\u00a0holds, “You shall not distort justice; \u00a0you shall not be partial, and you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts the words of the righteous.”<\/p>\n

\"EleanorRooseveltHumanRights.png\"Put in more modern terms, the\u00a0principle holds that “each independent human being must be treated equally by the law,” and that\u00a0“all people are subject to the same laws of justice (due process<\/a>).” \u00a0“Thus, everyone must be treated equally under the law … without<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0privilege<\/a>,\u00a0discrimination<\/a>, or\u00a0bias<\/a>.”<\/p>\n

And yet in Donald Trump’s world, that phrase would be turned on its head. \u00a0To borrow a phrase from George Orwell’s novel\u00a0Animal Farm<\/a>,\u00a0The Donald<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong><\/em>might say, “All Americans are\u00a0equal before the law<\/a>, but of course I am way<\/em> <\/strong>more equal than any other American…*”<\/p>\n

* \u00a0 * \u00a0 * \u00a0 *<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

* \u00a0 * \u00a0 * \u00a0 *<\/p>\n

The upper image is courtesy of\u00a0Forrest Gump (1994) \u2013 IMDb<\/a>. \u00a0I used the image in the November 13, 2016 post,\u00a0\u201cTrump is like a box of chocolates<\/a>.” \u00a0(The caption for that post was, “Are you telling me\u00a0Donald Trump<\/b><\/a>\u00a0just got elected president?\u201d) \u00a0<\/em><\/em>See also\u00a0Forrest Gump \u2013 Wikipedia<\/a>, and\u00a0Life is like a box of chocolates \u2013 Wiktionary<\/a>. \u00a0The latter indicated that the book \u201cNorwegian Wood<\/a>\u00a0<\/i>by\u00a0Haruki Murakami<\/a>, first published in Japanese in 1987, and in English in 1989, has the following: \u2018Just remember, life is like a box of chocolates.’\u201d \u00a0(I.e., some seven years before the movie.)<\/em><\/p>\n

The image to the left of the first, “simple answer” paragraph is courtesy of\u00a0The Quartet: Orchestrating the Second American Revolution<\/a>, by\u00a0Joseph J. Ellis<\/a>. \u00a0The four Founding Fathers pictured on the cover include\u00a0Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, John Jay, and James Madison.<\/span><\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cNote\u201d also that an asterisk in the main text indicates a statement supported by a reference detailed further in this \u201cnotes\u201d section. \u00a0Thus as to the “short answer” that Trump can’t pardon himself: \u00a0For an opposing view see\u00a0Yes, Trump can legally pardon himself or his family<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

As to the idea that a “sitting president could murder someone – in cold blood – and then blithely pardon himself,” see\u00a0The Use of Hypothetical Questions as Weapons at Trial<\/a>:<\/em><\/p>\n

Hypothetical questions are a vital tool for a trial lawyer. \u00a0Without them, we would have more difficulty proving cases, more difficulty disproving opposing theories, and more difficulty convincing juries of the righteousness of our cause.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The point being there would be literally no limit to Trump’s claim of a complete power to pardon<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Re: \u00a0Equality before the law. \u00a0The Wikipedia article noted the author\u00a0Anatole France<\/a>, who\u00a0said in 1894 that “In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread.”<\/em><\/p>\n

The image to the right of the paragraph starting “Put in modern terms” is courtesy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights<\/a>\u00a0link in the Wikipedia article\u00a0equality before the law<\/a>. \u00a0Caption: \u00a0“Eleanor Roosevelt<\/a>\u00a0with the Spanish language version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Re: \u00a0“I am\u00a0way<\/em>\u00a0<\/strong>more equal.” \u00a0The actual quote from\u00a0Animal Farm<\/a>\u00a0occurs when the original laws “are abridged to a single phrase: \u00a0‘All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.'”<\/em><\/p>\n

For a more learned analysis of the issue at hand, see\u00a0No, Trump can\u2019t pardon himself. The Constitution tells us so<\/a>. \u00a0Then there’s the article\u00a0<\/em>No president can pardon himself<\/a>:<\/em><\/p>\n

Here\u2019s some unsolicited advice for President Donald Trump: \u00a0Don\u2019t listen to any lawyers who might tell you that you can pardon yourself, or even that it\u2019s a close legal question. \u00a0You can\u2019t \u2014 and no court is going to rule otherwise.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Or see\u00a0OPINION | Dershowitz: Can the president pardon himself<\/a>? \u00a0It included the legal tenet that\u00a0No man is allowed to be a judge in his own case<\/a>. \u00a0That’s from James Madison, in his\u00a0Federalist 10<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Re: \u00a0The\u00a0National Review<\/a>\u00a0on a man judging his own case. \u00a0See,\u00a0Misreading Federalist No. 10<\/a>.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

The lower image is courtesy of the web article\u00a0Attorneys Explain Why Trump Must Be Impeached<\/a>! \u00a0The image was featured in\u00a0<\/em>From 11\/8\/16: \u201cHe\u2019ll be impeached within two years\u2026<\/em><\/a>”<\/p>\n

\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u201cAre you telling me that President\u00a0Donald Trump\u00a0can’t just up and pardon himself?\u201d * \u00a0 * \u00a0 * \u00a0 * There’s been a lot of hubbub lately about whether\u00a0President Donald Trump can pardon himself. The short answer? \u00a0No, he can’t.* Why? \u00a0The simple answer: \u00a0The idea that a sitting president could murder someone – in cold […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[5],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6351"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6351"}],"version-history":[{"count":36,"href":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6351\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6454,"href":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6351\/revisions\/6454"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6351"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6351"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6351"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}