This is territory I thought I would never have to think about but something stinks lately to say the least.

  • Pegajace@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

    • DomeGuy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      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/

      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.

      • Pika@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

      • JollyG@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

  • bitjunkie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’m pretty sure that to re-incarcerate someone after they were pardoned would require a new trial, which would violate the double jeopardy clause.

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Using traditional logic and precedent: no.

    In the context of the brave new world we find ourselves in, in which the Tribunal of Six have given the president effective carte blanche to do pretty much anything so long as it’s “an official act” (where an “official act” is defined, as far as I can tell, by the president saying “this is an official act”): lots of things, including

    • siccing one of the various spec ops teams from the DoDW or DoJ on them
    • declaring open season on said person, including a bounty and guaranteed presidential pardon
    • inviting them to a meeting and then shooting them in the face
    • etc

    Seriously, it’s anyone’s guess at this point. The bones of the system are crumbling, and many have already been shattered, likely irreversibly. The only thing holding this shitshow up at this point are load-bearing posters.

  • Professorozone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    I don’t know, but I would be fine if the presidential pardon was abolished. Perhaps replace it with only a stay of execution.

  • Rhoeri@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Nope. Trump is out to do as much irreparable damage as he can to own the Libz and there’s shit tons of nothing that a lot of people are willing to do about.

      • One_Honest_Dude@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Correct. That’s why he tried to talk so much about the auto pen. The claim being that Biden did not even know what was being signed, so that they were ‘never actually pardoned.’ Which is bull shit, just for the record.

      • Rhoeri@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I don’t think so, no. He’s a fat fucking troll. He’s full of all the shit one can stuff into a giant diaper. He wants us having this discussion and not the one that’s about him fucking kids.