There's something laughable about the idea of someone pardoning himself/herself, or perhaps a better word would be "incredible." It makes no sense; or no common sense, in any case. If I've done wrong, I generally have done wrong to someone other than myself. If anyone has any business pardoning me in that case, it would be the person I've wronged. It would be strikingly unjust if I could pardon myself. It would be evidently unfair.
The pardon power isn't an exclusively American creation by any means. Kings and Queens had that power for centuries. It was apparently accepted that they had the authority to grant clemency or even wipe from the record of the law any crime committed by a subject. I wonder if this power derived in some sense from the belief in the King's Touch. It was thought that a king could cure someone of the skin disease called scrofula by laying his hands on the stricken. Henry VIII, who certainly had the power to detach the heads of subjects if not by his own hands then by others, is shown using them (his hands, I mean, not the detached heads) to banish scrofula from some fortunate man above. The King's Touch itself probably derived from the power of Jesus and the apostles, and even some saints, to heal by laying their hands on the stricken.
Catholic priests, of course, have--or at least had (it's been some time)--the power to absolve, pardon that is to say, some sins by virtue of the Sacrament of Penance or Confession. They possessed the power because they were in effect the authorized representatives of Christ. The Catholic Church believes itself to be in direct succession the heir of the apostles. It is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, after all. Thus, its agents may forgive certain sins as it's thought the apostles did.
A King, Queen and I suppose some would say a president is in some sense treated, at least, as sacrosanct. There's something about their person while they hold their office that renders them untouchable, incapable of interference. There's a hint of mysticism in this. Our current president's lawyers have opined that a president as the chief officer and representative of the law of the land cannot obstruct the law, as the president is, in a way, the law as much as a person can be. The president thus becomes the law incarnate. The president cannot obstruct himself, right?
In any case, I think it's fair to say that for quite some time, and perhaps ever since we've had Kings and Queens or their equivalent, or priests or their equivalents, it's been accepted that certain persons, because of their special status or capacity, have the authority--the power--to pardon or absolve others of their crimes or sins, and even to cure them of certain diseases. But I don't think it's been accepted that certain persons have the authority to pardon or absolve themselves. Ego te absolvo was the formula used by priests, in nomine patri, fili et spiritus sancti. "I absolve you in the name of the father, the son and the holy spirit." Never, as far as I know, has anyone ever said "ego absolvo", i.e. "I absolve myself."
Our current president may be the first (and one can hope last) troll president, in the sense of an Internet troll. He seems to delight in antagonizing, offending, disrupting discourse, specific people or groups of people through the use of inflammatory, disturbing and even ridiculous statements. So there are those who think he's made the claim he can pardon himself merely to provoke. I hope that's the case and that he's merely intent on being annoying, as is his wont, or merely engaged in the kind of tactical display the more brutish of those in power sometimes practice. But he may in fact mean it.
While the president is in office, he/she is immune from prosecution. That seems to have been determined by the bulk of legal authorities; that the president is merely subject to impeachment if the designated crimes are committed while in office. Once out of office, the president is subject to prosecution, however. So, the concern would be that a president would pardon himself of crimes committed by him/her while in office. In that case those crimes, having been pardoned, could not be the basis for prosecution even after the president leaves office. The courts haven't weighed in on the idea of self-pardoning. Perhaps they'll have a chance to do so soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment