As another aspect, if the president is imprisoned somewhere, that could be basis for determining that he is unable to fulfill the duties of the office (apologies for not looking up the exact Constitutional wording), and passing powers on to the Vice President. Could is the operative word, because it’s the VP and cabinet that needs to make the initial determination (which is then approved by Congress). Certainly possible if, for instance, the President is imprisoned after the start of his term (let’s assume by a foreign power; otherwise simple impeachment is more likely). Less likely if he’s elected from a prison cell, as presumably the new VP and cabinet would be supporters of the new President, and so unlikely to try and remove him.
If the president disagrees with this action, the Congress has 21 days to vote on the matter, and a 2/3 majority is required by both houses.
What’s fascinating to me is how often we’ve had a Presidents who was clearly incapacitated with no transfer of power, even temporary. Washington, Madison, and Monroe were each deathly ill for periods of weeks. Garfield spent three months under sedation between the time he was shot and when he died. Chester Arthur had life-threatening kidney disease (and no VP in office). Wilson was paralyzed and blind after his stroke. FDR, Eisenhower, and LBJ each had health issues that put them out of commission for extended periods of time.
And yet the only formal invocations of the 25th amendment to temporarily transfer power has been when GWB had colonoscopies.
I’m assuming you could just Tweet it at this point.
I was under the impression that an oath had to be administered by someone having authority to administer oaths for it to be considered valid.
Think about this - could you validly enlist in the US Army by having your 7 year old niece adminster the enlistment oath to you? I don’t think that would legally make you a soldier.
Well, I can think of at least one extremely good reason why the 25th amendment wasn’t invoked for Washington, Madison, Monroe, Garfield, Arthur, Wilson, FDR, or Eisenhower…
Federal oaths of office are governed by 5 U.S.C.A. § 2903:
So it seems like LBJ could have sworn himself in. Kind of fits his character.
Fair enough, but there were multiple times before the amendment was passed where the issue came up, times when the President was undeniably incapacitated, often for weeks at a time. And yet despite the frequency with which this situation occurred, and 45 years after an amendment to deal with the issue was passed, it has been used twice, for a period of two hours each time, when it likely wasn’t vene necessary.
There is nothing - other than political reality - to keep a prisoner from being elected President. This is all he (someday she) has to be: President of the United States - Wikipedia
As noted above, if he’s a state prisoner, he cannot pardon himself, as the pardon power is only as to Federal offenses. If he’s a Federal prisoner, there is no legal consensus as to whether or not he can pardon himself. The question has never been litigated. My own view is that the Framers would be appalled at the thought of a President pardoning himself, but the Constitution does not explicitly forbid it, and the courts have generally held that the President may pardon whomever he pleases.
I was unaware that the Presidential pardon was limited only to federal offences.
That brings us to the question, can State Governors pardon themselves for in-state crimes. Is it different from state to state?
It wasn’t silly. You just didn’t understand it. Saint Cad was accusing anson2995 of thinking that SC did not know that a Chief Justice was not required to give the oath. I explained that that was not anson’s intent, which instead was merely to articulate a reason why neither place nor oathgiver mattered, thus answering the OP’s question.
Then I pointed out the one flaw in his argument–that he hadn’t covered for what would happen if the prisoner was in solitary confinement.
This post was made when I was getting tired of having to write multiple paragraphs to explain what I mean. I forgot that, when you do that, people often just assume you are being stupid rather than trying to figure out what you were saying.
Yes, it varies. Some states have a panel or board involved in any pardon or commutation decision; others give the governor a pretty free hand: Pardon - Wikipedia
OK, where’s the cite for Prez pardons being limited to federal offenses?
It’s right there in the Constitution:
[QUOTE=Art. 2, §2]
…he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States…
[/QUOTE]
Quite so. And see the second paragraph here: Pardon After Completion of Sentence
More importantly, see the third paragraph. I’m not accustomed to being this far wrong in my understanding of what Federal processes do/do not accomplish.
From here: http://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardon_instructions.htm
All this time I thought a Presidential Pardon would get folks out of prison. But according to this, you can’t even ask for one until five years after you’ve completed your sentence. I hardly see the point of it at all anymore.
That’s a bit misleading. In the federal context, executive clemency is separated into two forms: pardon and commutation. That rule applies to pardons, not commutations, which you can apply for while you’re still in choky or even before you begin serving a sentence. Most applications (and grants) are for commutation, but the media tends to refer to all forms of clemency as pardons. Also, that’s an administrative rule, rather than a law. Obama (or any POTUS) can do away with it more or less at will.
The President can always reach past the DOJ bureaucracy and grant pardons as he sees fit - not always wisely: Bill Clinton pardon controversy - Wikipedia
The president’s power to grant federal pardons and commutations is absolute. What you’re reading is the standard DOJ process to apply for a federal pardon. The president is not required to follow this process and may grant ad hoc pardons as he sees fit.
Obviously, it helps to have a process in place since there are a lot of federal criminals who would like a pardon or commutation.
This raises an interesting question. Some states rights advocates make the argument that the United States is not a single political entity - they argue the United States is a group of fifty sovereign entities.
If you follow the line of reasoning, it changes the meaning of the phrase “Offenses against the United States”. It would mean an offense committed against any state not just an offense committed against the national government. So that interpretation would give the President the power to pardon people convicted of violating state laws.
While I don’t agree with this interpretation, the reason I find it amusing is that you’ve got a situation where a strict states rights reading of the text of the Constitution gives the President greatly expanded powers over the states.