Overturning Arpaio's Pardon - Laurence Tribe and Joe Fein

[canetoad]

Excellent article laying out the case for overturning the pardon, using historical examples.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-presidential-pardon-power-is-not-absolute/2017/09/18/09d3497c-9ca5-11e7-9083-fbfddf6804c2_story.html

/snip

To understand why Trump’s pardon of Arpaio is so dangerous, step back to 1962, when a federal court ordered the all-white University of Mississippi to admit African American James Meredith. When the Mississippi governor refused to comply, the court directed the Justice Department to prosecute him for criminal contempt of court.

At the time, many anti-integration governors vowed “massive resistance” to court-ordered desegregation. The legal struggle against segregation relied on the power of court orders — enforceable by imprisonment for contempt.

Now imagine a president such as Trump pardoning the governor for contempt, while praising him, as Trump lauded Arpaio, for “doing his job.”

The message to segregationist officials would have been clear: just ignore federal court integration orders; the president will have your back if the court tries to enforce them through its contempt power.

[PoliticAverse]

1. Tribe's final argument is somewhat circular...

This is an unconstitutional pardon.
You can therefore impeach the President for issuing it.
Since you can impeach the President for issuing it it must be constitutionally voided.

Presidents have issued pardons for the crime of treason - a crime which threatens the existance
of the government itself and could deprive everyone of constitutional protections. If those pardons
weren't invalidated why would this one be?

The proper way to deal with a President who abuses the pardon authority is impeachment, as Tribe noted:

The framers suggested one solution to the prospect of such abuse. During a Virginia debate over whether to ratify the Constitution, George Mason worried that the president might “pardon crimes which were advised by himself.” James Madison replied that a president who did so could be impeached. Trump’s pardon of Arpaio should trigger congressional hearings on whether it constitutes an impeachable offense.

[Hortensis]

2. :) Your own argument strikes me as somewhat invalid. That, because action was never

taken before, it won't be now, even apparently "shouldn't" be now given the notion of a more "proper" way to proceed.

Appropriate as impeachment -- followed by removal from office of course -- might seem of this particular president, it is a huge, hugely drastic, and often not possible step. To close this hole and avoid constitutional crises, removal of a president from office should not be the only avenue open to legislators faced with the need to address abuse of pardon power.