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.
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.
That’s the neat part, it’s worded such that it could go either way. With the current makeup of the court, impeachment proceedings would have to start with the 6 first, and then flow back to the executive if we wanted anything to actually stick.
It means other people impeached cannot be pardoned, and that he cannot pardon himself.
Lots of people can be impeached besides the POTUS; from the VP, down to federal judges and cabinet members. He cannot pardon any of them if they’re impeached.
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/
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.
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.
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.
That’s the neat part, it’s worded such that it could go either way. With the current makeup of the court, impeachment proceedings would have to start with the 6 first, and then flow back to the executive if we wanted anything to actually stick.
Someone would argue framer’s intent, but that wouldn’t get them very far because nothing means anything anymore
This will go down as Drumps’ “greatest” achievement: “nothing means anything anymore”.
It means other people impeached cannot be pardoned, and that he cannot pardon himself.
Lots of people can be impeached besides the POTUS; from the VP, down to federal judges and cabinet members. He cannot pardon any of them if they’re impeached.