Arpaio Pardon By Trump May Be Nullified

Arpaio Pardon…

Donald Trump pulled a fast one late last week when he pardoned his racial-profiling good buddy, former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Now, a team of legal experts has petitioned the US Justice Department to put the brakes on Trump’s “Get Out Of Jail Free” card.

Current Events
“Hold on there, Donald. Not so fast” is the message being sent to Trump, who seemed to believe that he had king-like powers and could wield his pardon wand any way he wanted. Yes, presidents have the ability to issue pardons. However, as we are now learning, that ability is not unlimited.

Protect Democracy, an activist group created to prevent Trump’s violations of legal norms has joined forces with a group of attorneys to petition the Public Integrity Section, Criminal Division of the Justice Department that the Arpaio pardon goes beyond constitutional limits. Here are portions of their letter:

While the Constitution’s pardon power is broad, it is not unlimited. Like all provisions of the original Constitution of 1787, it is limited by later-enacted amendments, starting with the Bill of Rights. For example, were a president to announce that he planned to pardon all white defendants convicted of a certain crime but not all black defendants, that would conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

Similarly, issuance of a pardon that violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause is also suspect. Under the Due Process Clause, no one in the United States (citizen or otherwise) may “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” But for due process and judicial review to function, courts must be able to restrain government officials. Due process requires that, when a government official is found by a court to be violating individuals’ constitutional rights, the court can issue effective relief (such as an injunction) ordering the official to cease this unconstitutional conduct. And for an injunction to be effective, there must be a penalty for violation of the injunction—principally, contempt of court.

The argument here is that a president cannot preclude a court’s powers to enforce its orders when the constitutional rights of others are at stake. Or in other words, Donald Trump can’t trample the rights of others just to pardon a pal.

Current Events
“The president can’t use the pardon power to immunize lawless officials from consequences for violating people’s constitutional rights,” said Ron Fein, legal director of Free Speech for People and a co-author of the letter. “While many pardons are controversial politically, we are unaware of any past example of a pardon to a public official for criminal contempt of court for violating a court order to stop a systemic practice of violating individuals’ constitutional rights.”

“After repeatedly belittling and undermining judges verbally and on Twitter, now President Trump is escalating his attack on the courts into concrete actions,” added Ian Bassin, executive director of Protect Democracy. “His pardon and celebration of Joe Arpaio for ignoring a judicial order is a threat to our democracy and every citizen’s rights, and should not be allowed to stand.”

Simply put, Donald Trump cannot stretch his pardon powers that far beyond its original intent — because, if a president could pardon anyone who defies court orders to enforce constitutional protections, then those constitutional protections are rendered meaningless.
.

As with any other presidential power, the power to pardon is constrained by the ordinary requirements of federal law applicable to all public officials. For example, if representatives of a pardon-seeker arrived in the Oval Office with a bundle of cash that the president accepted in return for a pardon, there is little doubt that the president would be guilty of the crime of bribery. . . . If Trump were to pardon any of the figures in the current Russia investigation, his action would certainly impede or obstruct the due administration of justice, as the courts have broadly construed that standard. – Philip Allen Lacovara, former U.S. deputy solicitor general

.

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton has since canceled Arpaio’s upcoming sentencing hearing for his criminal contempt-of-court conviction, pending a review of the letter to the Department of Justice. Since the lawyers within the department are also officers of the bar who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, Judge Bolton is interested in seeing how they respond to the blatant abuse of power by their boss.

OK WASSUP! covers current events:
Trump’s pardon of Joe Arpaio could be nullified.