The pardon was originally seen as an act of compassion on the part of a benevolent ruler, based upon the notion of clemency on the part of governors. The idea is that a person who commits a crime may end up performing certain acts later that at least partially mitigate the committing of the crime. However, it has increasingly come under criticism given the fact that should a president commit conspiracy, they can use the pardon to exonerate themselves either directly or indirectly (through a proxy, such as a vice president). Should Trump pardon himself, then the new AG SHOULD take this to the SCOTUS with the argument that the intent of the constitution is being violated.
As has been observed more than once on DU, having been appointed to the SC, the judges at this point DO have a lifetime appointment, meaning that their positions are more or less immune to anything that Trump attempts. This means that SCOTUS may in fact use this opportunity to clarify and limit the scope of pardons, as it falls within the judicial branch. This would be far faster than attempting to set up a constitutional amendment to deal with it.
= new reply since forum marked as read
