In a tweet back in June, President Donald Trump insisted he has the “absolute right” to pardon himself for political transgressions (while simultaneously arguing there is no reason why he would require it). The circumstances have little precedent in American constitutional history and are open to interpretation by courts.
In a Q&A with Omnia magazine, Rogers Smith, the Christopher H. Browne Distinguished Professor of Political Science, breaks down the parameters, or lack thereof, of a presidential self-pardon, and how to apply judicial review to obstruction of justice at the executive level.
“The arguments go both ways. You can say on the one hand that the Constitution provides the modes of sanction, that's impeachment; and that under the separation of powers, the president is in charge of prosecutorial functions and therefore can choose to pardon himself or herself if the president so chooses.”
But, Smith adds, “The argument the other way is that the president takes an oath to faithfully execute the laws. If the president is, in fact, violating the laws, there ought to be a sanction beyond that, that no person should be above the law, and that the courts should have the power to punish criminal behavior.”
Read the full Q&A at Omnia.
