Trump Claims Right To Pardon Self Based On Scholars’ Opinions – Constitution Differs

As a child, many of us played with one of those peanut cans that contained a long, spring-loaded collapsible snake.  When shaking the can, it sounded as if it had some peanuts in it.  Upon opening the can, the spring-loaded coiled snake would rapidly be expelled causing tremendous laughter at the prank pulled on a friend.  Anyone try stuffing that snake back in the can?  It wasn’t easy, but doable after many attempts.

Well, this is how some things in government work.  Once government violates the Constitution, it isn’t easy to get government back to following the law of the land – if possible at all.  It is why so many constitutionalists have railed against government infringement, even when at the behest of ignorant people and anti-constitutionalists.  In the latest string of examples of a branch of government tossing out the Constitution, replacing it with their own interpretation, President Donald Trump announced that he has the “right” to pardon himself;  although, he doesn’t plan on doing so since he has not committed a crime.

According to Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution for the united States of America, “The President shall …have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the united States, except in cases of impeachment.”

Trending: Duck Duck Go’s far-left political donations and abuse of user data have users FUMING

In searching the Federalist Papers, regarding the power of the president to grant reprieves and pardons, nowhere did the writings of the constructs of the Constitution even hint at a president having the ability to pardon oneself from crimes committed against the united States.  But, with President Trump citing “numerous legal scholars” claiming he has the “right” to pardon himself from any crimes found in any investigation, it opens the door to future presidents declaring and possibly attempting to apply the pardoning power to himself.  And, who are these “legal scholars” declaring Trump has this right?  The President’s legal team, of course.

take our poll - story continues below

Has Big Tech Gone Too Far Banning the President?(2)

  • Has Big Tech Gone Too Far Banning the President?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

According to The Hill:

The question was reignited over the weekend when The New York Times published a January letter from the president’s legal team, which argues the president has the ability to pardon himself “if he so desired.” 

Trump personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani was not a member of the team when the letter was sent, but he nonetheless agreed with the expansive view of the president’s powers shared by his predecessor, John Dowd.

Giuliani said on ABC News’s “This Week” that while the president “probably” does have the power to issue himself a pardon, it would not be politically expedient.

“I think the political ramifications of that would be tough. Pardoning other people is one thing. Pardoning yourself is another,” the former New York City Mayor said. 

This goes along the line of the progressive view of the Constitution espoused by Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson – if it isn’t specifically listed in the Constitution as prohibited;  then, it can be done.  However, the Constitution is framed as the law “authorizing” the powers the federal government can exercise.  Since the authorized powers of the government are few, it is easier to list (enumerate) what the government can do as opposed to what the government is not allowed to do.  If a power is not enumerated to the federal government consisting of the legislative, executive and judicial branches, that power is not authorized to the government.  In other words, the power of the president to pardon himself is not given him by the Constitution;  therefore, the “right” or power to do so is not there.

So, since the Constitution does not grant the president the “right” or power to pardon himself and the framers in the Federalist Papers did not address the issue, one can deduce the President does not have that “right” or power because it is not enumerated that he holds the authority to shield himself from the law.  Moreover, this is akin to a normal citizen claiming the “right” to pardon him or herself from crimes committed or possibly committed.

So, that peanut can containing that long, spring-loaded coiled snake is trying to be opened by Trump.  He has “numerous legal scholars” backing him and his personal lawyer, former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani, agreeing with this view of presidential pardoning power.  Guiliani did claim it would not be “politically expedient” to pardon oneself;  but, what does anyone in the District of Corruption care about “political expedience?”

Performing an internet search on the pardoning powers of the president, one finds that anti-constitutional news outlets absolutely claim the president can pardon himself.  Why would these lamestream enemedia news outlets support a claim by President Trump when these outlets have railed against everything he does?  Simple;  it opens the door for future presidents of a Democratic anti-constitutional persuasion to exercise that imaginary power after committing crimes against the united States and the American people.  These outlets supporting it and Democrats railing against his statement can turn around in the future to cite Trump’s “numerous legal scholars” and Trump’s personal lawyer as the authorities on presidential pardoning powers.  Remember, Democrats are against an issue until they are for it.  The same goes for Republicans.

It’s no secret that this writer is not a fan of the “granting reprieves and pardons” power of the executive branch.  However, it is understandable why the framers gave the executive this power;  therefore, despite disagreeing with this power, it is contained in the Constitution and supported.  Why does this writer support it?  First, to support the Constitution, uphold it, defend it and protect it, one supports it in its entirety even when disagreeing with a portion of it.  Second, the ability to grant reprieves and pardons by the executive, when used properly, protects individuals from political persecution, railroading and incarceration at the hands of their opponents.  Unfortunately, presidents have misused and abused this power to shield their cronies, friends and others from prosecution.

Now, President Trump seeks to expand the pardoning power of the president so a sitting president can pardon himself.  While he may not do it, he has floated the idea around, obtained “numerous legal scholars” to echo his position, and had his personal lawyer agree with it while claiming it isn’t politically expedient to do so.  Well, that is all that is needed for any future president, or even this one, to exercise that imagined power.  Again, it uses the late 19th and early 20th century progressive view of the Constitution to usurp or invent a power that is not there.  Being propped up by the anti-constitutional lamestream enemedia news outlets fuels the flames even more as Democrats engage in “leading controlled opposition” to this newly invented power.

Are American citizens paying attention to what is actually going on here?  Vladimir Lenin once said, “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.”  Knowing those holding to the Constitution would not ever support a president usurping power to pardon himself, the Democrats are seizing upon this to “lead” the opposition, in order to control it.  Then, when a future Democrat is elected president, the Democrats will be all for the president committing crimes against the US and its citizens, supporting the power of self-pardon by “their man in the White House,” who can then pardon them all for their crimes.

As someone once told me, “you need to know when to keep your mouth shut as there are some things that should not be repeated.”  Trump knows this but threw that bit of “numerous legal scholars scholarly” knowledge out there anyway for the anti-Constitutional sect to run down the field with it.  Is this a distraction item to focus attention on this instead of something else?  Who knows but one can rest assured this issue will surface again and it will be anti-Constitutional Democrats who will be referencing Trump’s “numerous legal scholars” to defend an anti-Constitutional Democrat president who will exercise the invented “right” of self-pardon.  And, you can bet anti-Trump Republicans will fall in line with the Democrats leading that opposition to Trump’s self-pardoning power;  but, these Republicans will cower in place when Democrats support an anti-Constitutional Democrat president exercising that imagined power.  It’s how the game is played to further enslave the masses.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Freedom Outpost email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

You Might Like
Previous Closer Look At Details Of Papadopoulos/Downer London Conversation Throws Cold Water On Previous Assumptions
Next Supreme Court Upholds Right Of Christian Baker To Deny Service To Sodomites

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon to the right of the comment, and report it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation. If you don't see a commenting section below, please disable your adblocker.

Sorry. No data so far.