A Catholic website for the modern reader
January 2021
The Pardon Power
15/01/21 15:14 Filed in: Constitution | Presidential Pardon
In the waning days of the Trump administration, while many people seek to put behind them his now failed presidency, all eyes are on the pardons expected to flow from Trump's pen. These include himself, his children and even the rioters who: attempted to lay waste to the U.S. Capitol, execute the vice-president and speaker of the House, arrest other members of Congress, and overthrow democracy, itself. It seems, therefore, that we should examine the idea of pardons and presidential power.
The words of the Constitution are clear. It states that the president “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” However, words do not exist in a vacuum. They have both meaning and context. The Constitution defines the branches of government and delineates their powers.
But it is not a dictionary. Hence the necessity of understanding the meaning of words. Even so called “originalists” must know what words mean if one is to correctly interpret the Constitution.
Let’s look at the three possible pardons mentioned above. First, Trump cannot pardon himself. By its very definition, a pardon requires two parties—the offended and the offender. This has embedded its way into daily discourse and even the manners we teach our children. For example, when we accidentally bump into another person, we say, “Pardon me.” In other conversation, whether seriously or in jest or even in sarcasm, we frequently hear the expression, “I beg your pardon.”
In the second example, Trump is fully within his constitutional rights to pardon his children. But here there exist two caveats. You cannot pardon someone for an offense or crime that they did not commit. If Trump does pardon his children he is admitting that they committed crimes against the United States. The second caveat has never been challenged in court. And that is a blanket pardon. Since Trump’s children have not yet been charged with a crime, there is reason to doubt that he can pardon them. It has been done in the past, as in the case of Richard Nixon. But it was not challenged. Legally, it is difficult to comprehend how one can be pardoned, without knowing the offense. That should deter even the most conservative judges, in fact especially the most conservative of judges, from siding with Trump.
Considering the country’s current climate, the third example may be the most critical. Can Trump pardon those who participated in the capitol riots? Some have not yet been charged and they would fall under the second caveat regarding Trump’s children. Those who have been charged would seem to fall under Trump’s pardon purview as president. However, as you might guess, it is not that simple.
In criminal law the attorney-client privilege is bedrock. Still, it is automatically rendered non-existent if the attorney and client conspire to commit a crime. On January 6, 2021 Donald J. Trump incited an insurrection against the United States. As such, he is complicit in the crime of treason. By extension of the first argument that he cannot pardon himself, and in the same way that the attorney-client privilege evaporates when conspiring to commit a crime, Trump cannot pardon the people with whom he conspired to overthrow the United States of America.
The act of conspiring need not be explicit. Trump did not say, “Go take over the Capitol Building, hang Mike Pence, kill Nancy Pelosi and arrest members of Congress.” He did tell the mob to march to the Capitol Building and “fight like hell or you won’t have a country left.” That is an incitement to riot. It is the language of revolution, a call to insurrection. It is treason, plain and simple.
Regardless of whom Trump tries to pardon in the next few days, the Justice Department must proceed with charging and bringing to trial anyone who committed crimes. That includes the January 6 insurrectionists, Trump’s children and even Trump himself. If necessary, the courts will defend the constitution. The presidential pardon power has limits.
The words of the Constitution are clear. It states that the president “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” However, words do not exist in a vacuum. They have both meaning and context. The Constitution defines the branches of government and delineates their powers.
But it is not a dictionary. Hence the necessity of understanding the meaning of words. Even so called “originalists” must know what words mean if one is to correctly interpret the Constitution.
Let’s look at the three possible pardons mentioned above. First, Trump cannot pardon himself. By its very definition, a pardon requires two parties—the offended and the offender. This has embedded its way into daily discourse and even the manners we teach our children. For example, when we accidentally bump into another person, we say, “Pardon me.” In other conversation, whether seriously or in jest or even in sarcasm, we frequently hear the expression, “I beg your pardon.”
In the second example, Trump is fully within his constitutional rights to pardon his children. But here there exist two caveats. You cannot pardon someone for an offense or crime that they did not commit. If Trump does pardon his children he is admitting that they committed crimes against the United States. The second caveat has never been challenged in court. And that is a blanket pardon. Since Trump’s children have not yet been charged with a crime, there is reason to doubt that he can pardon them. It has been done in the past, as in the case of Richard Nixon. But it was not challenged. Legally, it is difficult to comprehend how one can be pardoned, without knowing the offense. That should deter even the most conservative judges, in fact especially the most conservative of judges, from siding with Trump.
Considering the country’s current climate, the third example may be the most critical. Can Trump pardon those who participated in the capitol riots? Some have not yet been charged and they would fall under the second caveat regarding Trump’s children. Those who have been charged would seem to fall under Trump’s pardon purview as president. However, as you might guess, it is not that simple.
In criminal law the attorney-client privilege is bedrock. Still, it is automatically rendered non-existent if the attorney and client conspire to commit a crime. On January 6, 2021 Donald J. Trump incited an insurrection against the United States. As such, he is complicit in the crime of treason. By extension of the first argument that he cannot pardon himself, and in the same way that the attorney-client privilege evaporates when conspiring to commit a crime, Trump cannot pardon the people with whom he conspired to overthrow the United States of America.
The act of conspiring need not be explicit. Trump did not say, “Go take over the Capitol Building, hang Mike Pence, kill Nancy Pelosi and arrest members of Congress.” He did tell the mob to march to the Capitol Building and “fight like hell or you won’t have a country left.” That is an incitement to riot. It is the language of revolution, a call to insurrection. It is treason, plain and simple.
Regardless of whom Trump tries to pardon in the next few days, the Justice Department must proceed with charging and bringing to trial anyone who committed crimes. That includes the January 6 insurrectionists, Trump’s children and even Trump himself. If necessary, the courts will defend the constitution. The presidential pardon power has limits.
The Perfect Candidate
03/01/21 18:32 Filed in: Elections
To some extent all elections are about popularity. Most people do not vote for someone they do not like. Except, that is, when the electorate believes that they are voting for the lesser of two evils. So how do we determine the perfect candidate? As with almost everything else, it is easier to say what the perfect candidate is not, than to say what he or she is. Let’s start there.
Acknowledging that this is a very broad stroke, and admitting that there are exceptions, I would suggest that a former athlete, whether coach or player, is unqualified—regardless their popularity. In part, this is because the ultimate purpose of all sports is to win. The inspiring adage from Grantland Rice, “It is not whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game,” has no relevance in modern American athletics—at least from high school on up to, and including, the pros. Coaches who consistently lose, get fired. Athletes who do not excel are benched or traded. Winning is everything.
But politics is not about winning. Yes, the campaign is. But once elected, the politician needs to be able to compromise and work toward a common goal. Unlike elections, passing legislation is not about victors and losers.
A second disqualifier is ignorance of government. How can someone be a politician without knowing anything about civics or governance? By a strange coincidence, the newly elected senator from Alabama, Tommy Tuberville, is not only a former football coach. He is also breathtakingly ignorant about the very office he was elected to. During his campaign he displayed surprise when informed of the senate’s role of “advice and consent.” And with stunning stupidity he declared that the three branches of government are “the House, the Senate and the Executive.” Thanks a lot, Alabama.
A third consideration is that the ideal candidate should not want to shred the Constitution or destroy democracy, itself. At this writing there are some 140 Republicans in the House and 11 senators who, on January 6, intend to challenge the certified, electoral tallies in six different states. The legal provision allowing such challenges is supposed to be based on irregularities or fraud in a particular state.
Since the election, the Trump campaign has filed nearly 60 legal challenges before a combination of state and federal judges, the federal ones being appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents, some even by Trump himself. The unanimous conclusion is that there is no evidence of voter fraud that could overturn the electoral outcome. That means that what these elected officials will attempt on January 6, is the destruction of democracy.
If that were not enough, Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert has proven himself unqualified, indeed unfit, for elected office. He has called for violence if the challenge is not successful. It is essential that we recognize Gohmert as intellectually off-the-rails. More importantly, we must call him what he is—a modern day Benedict Arnold. He is demanding for the violent overthrow of the United States Government. In any civics class (which he apparently never attended) there is a name for that. It is treason—pure and simple.
There will always be good and bad candidates for public office and they will come from many quarters. In our two-party system it is necessary that those parties be committed to the principles of democracy and that the elected officials fulfill their sworn obligation to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
As I said in the beginning, it is easier to say what the perfect candidate is not, than it is to say what he or she is. We continue to look for people of competent intellect, those with good communication skills, a commitment to democracy, a vision for the future of our country, a recognition of the equality and value of all persons. But in our search for the perfect candidate, at least for now, it is not a Republican.
Acknowledging that this is a very broad stroke, and admitting that there are exceptions, I would suggest that a former athlete, whether coach or player, is unqualified—regardless their popularity. In part, this is because the ultimate purpose of all sports is to win. The inspiring adage from Grantland Rice, “It is not whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game,” has no relevance in modern American athletics—at least from high school on up to, and including, the pros. Coaches who consistently lose, get fired. Athletes who do not excel are benched or traded. Winning is everything.
But politics is not about winning. Yes, the campaign is. But once elected, the politician needs to be able to compromise and work toward a common goal. Unlike elections, passing legislation is not about victors and losers.
A second disqualifier is ignorance of government. How can someone be a politician without knowing anything about civics or governance? By a strange coincidence, the newly elected senator from Alabama, Tommy Tuberville, is not only a former football coach. He is also breathtakingly ignorant about the very office he was elected to. During his campaign he displayed surprise when informed of the senate’s role of “advice and consent.” And with stunning stupidity he declared that the three branches of government are “the House, the Senate and the Executive.” Thanks a lot, Alabama.
A third consideration is that the ideal candidate should not want to shred the Constitution or destroy democracy, itself. At this writing there are some 140 Republicans in the House and 11 senators who, on January 6, intend to challenge the certified, electoral tallies in six different states. The legal provision allowing such challenges is supposed to be based on irregularities or fraud in a particular state.
Since the election, the Trump campaign has filed nearly 60 legal challenges before a combination of state and federal judges, the federal ones being appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents, some even by Trump himself. The unanimous conclusion is that there is no evidence of voter fraud that could overturn the electoral outcome. That means that what these elected officials will attempt on January 6, is the destruction of democracy.
If that were not enough, Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert has proven himself unqualified, indeed unfit, for elected office. He has called for violence if the challenge is not successful. It is essential that we recognize Gohmert as intellectually off-the-rails. More importantly, we must call him what he is—a modern day Benedict Arnold. He is demanding for the violent overthrow of the United States Government. In any civics class (which he apparently never attended) there is a name for that. It is treason—pure and simple.
There will always be good and bad candidates for public office and they will come from many quarters. In our two-party system it is necessary that those parties be committed to the principles of democracy and that the elected officials fulfill their sworn obligation to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
As I said in the beginning, it is easier to say what the perfect candidate is not, than it is to say what he or she is. We continue to look for people of competent intellect, those with good communication skills, a commitment to democracy, a vision for the future of our country, a recognition of the equality and value of all persons. But in our search for the perfect candidate, at least for now, it is not a Republican.