No. The power of the pardon is explicitly granted to the President in the text of the Constitution, and it provides no mechanism for reversing such pardons. It’s meant to be a check against unjust laws and/or corrupt courts, and presidents who would corruptly abuse the power for their own profit are supposed to be removed from office via impeachment—but as we’ve seen, Congress won’t even remove a president who orchestrates a mob attack against themselves as part of a scheme to overthrow an election.
The President … shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
That last emphasized line means that if the US Congress were to impeach and remove a president for bribery or a criminal conspiracy, they could also negate any pardons given to POTUS’s collaborators.
Of course, since no US President has ever been removed from office by congress’s impeachment power, and it’s uncertain if a post-term impeachment and conviction would itself pass the inevitable SCOTUS appeal, this is even less likely than the US Congress awarding a no-majoroty electoral collage vote to the other major party.
That’s the neat part, it’s worded such that it could go either way. With the current makeup of the court, impeachment proceedings would have to start with the 6 first, and then flow back to the executive if we wanted anything to actually stick.
If MAGA were looking at it, the way they are looking at Birthright Citizenship, they would accept even the most ridiculous interpretation, if it aligns with their agenda. Dems should do the same thing, and interpret the law so that it best benefits them.
I think you would struggle to find any serious Constitutional scholar who would agree with your interpretation. “Except in cases of impeachment” is clearly a limit on what cases a president has the power to issue a pardon, not a retroactive “unpardoning” of cases after a president has been impeached. In fact the retroactive nullification of a pardon seems to fly in the face of a basic judicial principle that hold decisions to be final.
I would agree except in cases where the pardon was in support of an ongoing criminal conspiracy. Using pardons to facilitate, encourage, and cover up criminal activity seems like a reversible situation, one the courts would be enthusiastic to correct.
It means other people impeached cannot be pardoned, and that he cannot pardon himself.
Lots of people can be impeached besides the POTUS; from the VP, down to federal judges and cabinet members. He cannot pardon any of them if they’re impeached.
No. The power of the pardon is explicitly granted to the President in the text of the Constitution, and it provides no mechanism for reversing such pardons. It’s meant to be a check against unjust laws and/or corrupt courts, and presidents who would corruptly abuse the power for their own profit are supposed to be removed from office via impeachment—but as we’ve seen, Congress won’t even remove a president who orchestrates a mob attack against themselves as part of a scheme to overthrow an election.
Go read the actual text of the US Constitution . The answer is a quirky technical “well, theoretically yes but practically no.”
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-2/clause-1/
That last emphasized line means that if the US Congress were to impeach and remove a president for bribery or a criminal conspiracy, they could also negate any pardons given to POTUS’s collaborators.
Of course, since no US President has ever been removed from office by congress’s impeachment power, and it’s uncertain if a post-term impeachment and conviction would itself pass the inevitable SCOTUS appeal, this is even less likely than the US Congress awarding a no-majoroty electoral collage vote to the other major party.
I never noticed that before. So if we could fully impeach him and run him out of office, all those 9/11 traitors go back to prison?
I’ve got a new objective.
I thought the intent behind that wasn’t to revoke previous pardons, but was to prevent a president from pardoning themselves in an impeachment trial.
That’s the neat part, it’s worded such that it could go either way. With the current makeup of the court, impeachment proceedings would have to start with the 6 first, and then flow back to the executive if we wanted anything to actually stick.
If MAGA were looking at it, the way they are looking at Birthright Citizenship, they would accept even the most ridiculous interpretation, if it aligns with their agenda. Dems should do the same thing, and interpret the law so that it best benefits them.
Someone would argue framer’s intent, but that wouldn’t get them very far because nothing means anything anymore
This will go down as Drumps’ “greatest” achievement: “nothing means anything anymore”.
I think you would struggle to find any serious Constitutional scholar who would agree with your interpretation. “Except in cases of impeachment” is clearly a limit on what cases a president has the power to issue a pardon, not a retroactive “unpardoning” of cases after a president has been impeached. In fact the retroactive nullification of a pardon seems to fly in the face of a basic judicial principle that hold decisions to be final.
I would agree except in cases where the pardon was in support of an ongoing criminal conspiracy. Using pardons to facilitate, encourage, and cover up criminal activity seems like a reversible situation, one the courts would be enthusiastic to correct.
It means other people impeached cannot be pardoned, and that he cannot pardon himself.
Lots of people can be impeached besides the POTUS; from the VP, down to federal judges and cabinet members. He cannot pardon any of them if they’re impeached.