Let’s say it comes to light that the president has millions of dollars in graft and kickback sitting in an offshore account. (Our current prez came from the Chicago political machine, so this is not a far-fetched scenario 
) The president has the power to pardon in order to preserve justice, not pervert it. It’s hard to argue that being able to break the law with impunity serves the interests of justice, so in the end I’m guessing the Supreme Court would rule any self-pardon inappropriate and invalid.
Could have been either one. It would have been a posthumous pardon, of course, since they were both dead at the time.
Yes, I know: normally in a posthumous pardon, the person granting the pardon is alive and the recipient is deceased. But let’s not be stifled by convention here.
RTFirefly:
Especially not in a zombie thread.
This isn’t a zombie thread.
Isn’t it also true that for a private citizen to receive a pardon, he’s already had to pay his debt to society?
Three facts to interject…
What’s usually overlooked in these discussions is the SCOTUS ruling in Burdick v. United States. The 1915 case held that pardons have to be affirmatively accepted by the receiving party to take effect (Burdick refused his) and that doing so carries with it an admission of guilt.
A president can only issue pardons for Federal crimes.
Carter didn’t actually issue pardons to draft dodgers, it was an amnesty program.
Huh? If the citizen has already paid his debt to society (serving out his prison term?), then what does the pardon accomplish for him?
Expunges the crime from his record.
No. After all, both Clinton and Andrew Johnson were impeached. It MAY include removal from office, as part of one’s sentence, but it’s not manditory.
Just being impeached doesn’t result in removal, but conviction by the Senate does immediately. It’s not optional at that point.
I remember during the Clinton impeachment that there were questions about the Senate convicting him but imposing some other punishment such as censure or perhaps a suspension from office.
Those questions were met with resounding "no"s from legal scholars. Once convicted in the Senate, removal from office was mandatory. The only thing left to decide was whether to forever prohibit him from holding an office of profit or trust.
Impeachment is an indictment, not a conviction. Nixon was NOT ever impeached, Clinton (& Andrew Johnson) were impeached, but neither were convicted. Once a President leaves office I don’t see anything (politics aside) to prevent their arrest and/or prosecution for high crimes and misdemeanors as private citizens. If committed while in The White House once they resigned the DCPD could still have jurisdiction. If their hypothetical theft occurred across state lines the FBI would too.