There are numerous experts on television, radio and the Internet who would like to make the American citizen electorate believe in the second decade of the 21st century that the executive branch of the federal government of the United States, the permanent president of the United States, has the constitutional article II of the United States. power to forgive yourself. In doing so, these supposedly educated and knowledgeable men and women, considered in most cases to be celebrities, are affirmed in their arguments by a large number of followers of their supporters, comprising a large number of men and women over the age of eighteen. who are eligible to vote. However, are these experts and commentators correct in their assumptions? These experts have obviously read, and routinely cited, what the distinguished Framers wrote in Article II, Section II on Presidential Powers, and the dictates of the only definitive commentary essays on the specifics of the Constitution of the United States. United States, the “Federalist Papers,” written by James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton, in 1787, prior to the ratification of the United States Constitution. However, like the generalized power of attorney and the warning provided by the drafters in Article I, Section VIII to the Legislative Branch of the republic that requires Congress to enact laws that are only “necessary and adequate” for the implementation of the powers. specific and exclusive legislative provisions. in Article I, Section VIII, which, since 1790, has been misinterpreted and lightly to mean, instead, laws that are “convenient and popular,” the generalized power of the President to pardon in Article II, Section II, Clause I, “… and shall have the power to grant pardons and pardons for crimes against the United States, except in cases of impeachment” has been misconstrued in the sense that it was not intended to mean.
The honorable framers of the United States Constitution were many of the same wise and prudent men who had been part of the First and Second Continental Congresses, who presided over the Revolutionary War, proclaimed the Declaration of Independence in the creation of a new nation, and later they forged the Articles of Confederation. These men were not stupid and prone to flights of fancy and illogical assumptions. Their good sense had been tested and proven, for they had already faced a frivolous British king, George III, who had arrogantly presumed that he, as a dictator, could do no wrong, and that, had he done so, he could have saluted his royalty. magic wand in his regal way and exonerated himself of all guilt. In other words, George III presumed that he was above the law, because he despised justice and natural law. The British Parliament had been forced to accept every whim of adolescent superiority of the boy king. In other words, King George III had the power to forgive himself of each and every crime, and this was something the Framers had detested. For that reason, and for reasons of justice and law, the drafters placed in Article II, Section II of the United States Constitution a restriction on the clemency of a president of the United States. In the first place, a president could not forgive himself. Why? The very specific warning regarding impeachment cases made it very clear that federal officials could only be removed from office by impeachment, such as presidents, vice presidents, federal judges, etc. they cannot be forgiven for their crimes sooner or later. the impeachment process took place while they were still in office. Since a president of the United States, while in office, cannot be removed except through the impeachment process, it is very clear that the president cannot forgive himself. Only the presidents of the United States can grant pardons to criminals charged, tried, and convicted of crimes against the United States, who were exempt from impeachment.
In the very absurd case of President Richard Nixon, who obviously committed serious crimes, based on the evidence adduced against him, and would likely have been indicted and convicted at the federal level after his resignation from the presidency, President Gerald Ford illegally pardoned its predecessor. Nixon had been charged but not convicted of his alleged crimes. Therefore, the clemency for Nixon should have been based on crimes for which he would have been convicted had he been indicted by a federal grand jury, arrested, and tried in federal court after his resignation. A president of the United States cannot forgive a person based solely on accusations. Just as the First Congress of the United States had allowed President George Washington to issue the first unconstitutional executive order, ordering the construction of a federal mint, rather than reprimanding him for going against the constitutional separation of powers, Congress and most of the town just sat down and allowed Ford to illegally pardon Nixon; and while Ford was proceeding illegally against the letter of the United States Constitution, the spirit of John Adams cried out from the grave that “the republic of the United States is a nation of laws and not of men.”
There is also another matter of sheer common sense that applies to fully understanding that a president of the United States cannot reasonably forgive himself. No person in an executive government role should have the authority to forgive himself. Such a deleterious power is that which generally resides in the purse of a tyrant or dictator. Common sense dictates this reasoning. It has long been established in state law that state governors do not have the constitutional power of the state to forgive themselves, placing themselves above the law, and state governors are what presidents of the United States are to. the federal government. There is even precedent for asserting that 19th and 20th century American presidents charged with serious crimes have not sought, or even considered, an Article II, Section II power to forgive themselves. In the first presidential impeachment case, President Andrew Johnson, who replaced Abraham Lincoln after his assassination, never considered a pardon for himself, and Congress never considered the issue. If you look at the detailed historical record of the legislative events of 1868, the impeachment process was the only constitutional means of removing a sitting president, and Andrew Johnson accepted the full weight of the impeachment and was acquitted at trial on the 28th. May 1968, by the United States Senate by a single vote. The second and most recent attempt to impeach a president, the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, began successfully in December 1998 and ended with an acquittal by the United States Senate in February 1999. During that time period, neither Clinton, nor an attorney, nor his inner circle of legal advisers had ever contemplated a self-pardon, and history reveals that Clinton was extremely concerned about a condemnation vote in the Senate.
The Constitution of the United States continues to be a fragile and delicate document of federalism and of freedom ordered by the proper maintenance of its established rules, processes and procedures. That the legislative, executive, and judicial rules, processes, and procedures of the glorious United States Constitution have been egregiously and pragmatically changed in their implementation without the amendment process during the 20th century is true and factual. The way those rules, processes, and procedures were understood in 1790 is hardly the way they are understood and applied in 2018, and people wonder what has happened to the government and economy of the American republic. A reading of Article II, Section II of the lenient power of a United States president in designing feds and the wild assumptions evoked in the minds of those pragmatic people that presidents have the power to forgive themselves is a good example of these creepy changes. as it can be brought out into the immediate light of day.
As has been redundantly established during the previous twelve months of special tax inquiry, President Donald Trump has not made any mistakes as the progressive Liberal Democrats allege. Instead, the progressive Democrats who impeach President Trump have been shown to be utterly complicit in colluding with the Russians in using the Obama Justice Department and the FBI to illegitimately undermine presidential candidate Donald Trump’s campaign and his unexpected victory. in the 2017 presidential election. Therefore, President Trump would have no reason to seek an unconstitutional effort to pardon himself, to place himself on the same level as Barack Obama, who issued, with impunity, numerous illegal executive orders to circumvent the constitutional legislative process .
To ensure that illegal misinterpretations of the United States Constitution are censored and prohibited, a constitutional convention of the States, under the power vested in the States by the drafters in Article V of the United States Constitution, must be summoned by the authority of two thirds. of the state legislatures to propose new amendments to the Constitution of the United States and to repeal some others, whereby the intention of the honored Framers would be indelibly etched in stone, then and forever, to restore what has been desecrated by pragmatic men and women who have sought to undermine the economic, financial, and governmental rules, processes, and procedures of the United States Constitution. That this be done very soon is my humble prayer.