Presidential Self-Pardon
I'm not American, and I'm certainly not well versed in American Constitutional law. But, this is a very hotly contested debate at the moment.
It is kind of ludicrous that people are even having this debate.
After a bit of thinking and soul searching the conclusion I came up with this; the president probably does have the power to pardon himself. But, the point should be moot. The constitution has measures to remove a president from office.
Why do I think that the justice system would find that the president has the power to pardon himself? Two reasons, political stability and the existence of an clear alternative.
The legal system is slow, demeaning and an interference. The leader of a country can't be expected to run a country effectively while facing a lengthy legal trial. It would interfere their duties too substantially and would ruin the image of the entire country. Put simply; I think the good of a country is actually better served by not trying to prosecute a sitting leader.
The weakness of the legal system is simple, even if the case moves forward, it wouldn't mean that the President is yet proven guilty. Until there is actually a conviction, there would be nothing substantive upon which to make a move regarding transference of power or any other such thing.
Furthermore, a guilty leader who wishes to serve the best interests of his country would simply step aside.
But, the courts don't need to rely on good will. There is impeachment. Impeachment exists specifically to handle these sorts of cases. Which is exactly why it would be easier for the courts to interpret the president as holding this power if there is any doubts otherwise.
And, impeachment doesn't require a conviction. There is no lengthy court battle. There are no lawyers. There are simply elected officials casting votes. It is relatively quicker, it less encumbered by a need for facts or proving something.
One would certainly hope that a president pardoning himself would be grounds to start impeachment proceedings. Because while there are strategic reasons for not prosecuting a national leader, you still wouldn't want to send the message that "actually, there are some people who are above the law".
It is kind of ludicrous that people are even having this debate.
After a bit of thinking and soul searching the conclusion I came up with this; the president probably does have the power to pardon himself. But, the point should be moot. The constitution has measures to remove a president from office.
Why do I think that the justice system would find that the president has the power to pardon himself? Two reasons, political stability and the existence of an clear alternative.
The legal system is slow, demeaning and an interference. The leader of a country can't be expected to run a country effectively while facing a lengthy legal trial. It would interfere their duties too substantially and would ruin the image of the entire country. Put simply; I think the good of a country is actually better served by not trying to prosecute a sitting leader.
The weakness of the legal system is simple, even if the case moves forward, it wouldn't mean that the President is yet proven guilty. Until there is actually a conviction, there would be nothing substantive upon which to make a move regarding transference of power or any other such thing.
Furthermore, a guilty leader who wishes to serve the best interests of his country would simply step aside.
But, the courts don't need to rely on good will. There is impeachment. Impeachment exists specifically to handle these sorts of cases. Which is exactly why it would be easier for the courts to interpret the president as holding this power if there is any doubts otherwise.
And, impeachment doesn't require a conviction. There is no lengthy court battle. There are no lawyers. There are simply elected officials casting votes. It is relatively quicker, it less encumbered by a need for facts or proving something.
One would certainly hope that a president pardoning himself would be grounds to start impeachment proceedings. Because while there are strategic reasons for not prosecuting a national leader, you still wouldn't want to send the message that "actually, there are some people who are above the law".
Comments
Post a Comment