Popular conservative radio host Mark Levin argued this week that if elected to the White House, Donald Trump would have the authority to pardon himself from state charges, according to existing Justice Dept. policy.
Levin argues that unique circumstances allow a president to pardon himself.
Breitbart reports:
The argument has several components. First, Levin notes that the existing Department of Justice policy against indicting a sitting president is partly explained by the idea that mounting a criminal defense would prevent a president from performing his or her duties.
Second, Levin argues that the same reasoning ought to apply to state indictments of a sitting president, because they could likewise distract the president — and because, in theory, they could be brought by any elected prosecutor in any jurisdiction. It cannot be, Levin argues, that the reasoning for the policy against indicting a sitting president in federal court would not also apply to a state court, where filing indictments is much easier in certain jurisdictions and is often driven by political considerations.
Finally, Levin argues that since a president can arguably pardon himself from federal crimes — a somewhat controversial, but accepted, view — the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause should override state law on pardons as well, for the reasons above.
READ NEXT: Newspaper Shares Salacious Details In Buried Obama Letter
Ahhh Another example of the ignorance & stupidity of conservatives. : Finally, Levin argues that since a president can arguably pardon himself from federal crimes — a somewhat controversial, but accepted, view — the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause should override state law on pardons as well, for the reasons above.
He now thinks that he is an expert in constitutional law. And ignores 250+ years of precedent. And the idea that the states were created and designed to be, more or less, independent of the federal government.
The relevant clause is: The Constitution grants the president the power to pardon “offenses against the United States”.[5] An offense that violates state law, but not federal law, is an offense against that state rather than an offense against the United States; however, the Supreme Court has never ruled on this matter or in the President’s power to grant a habeas corpus petition for a state offense where it has been denied by a federal court.[5][8].
I would venture to say, that given the record low opinion in in which Trump and His court are held that the court would not want , shall we say, “test limits”.