Last Friday night, while Hurricane Harvey flooded Texas, President Trump pardoned Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio of his contempt of court conviction.
Four weeks ago, Arpaio was found guilty for blatantly disobeying a court order demanding that he stop his harsh immigration controls. The court order was issued in 2011 after the sheriff's office was accused of violating the Constitution by using racial profiling to target Latinos; Arpaio was specifically known to stop immigrants based solely on a suspicion that they were illegal, with no true evidence backing his claims. After the court order was issued, Arpaio, knowing fully what the orders were, extended his patrols another 17 months and declared to his subordinates that he would continuing doing what he was doing no matter what the court order designated for him to do.
Arpaio has since been pardoned by Trump for this misdemeanor (before he was even sentenced), but he now seeks to clear his name by asking the judge to throw out the conviction against him. On Monday August 28th, Arpaio and his attorneys went to court claiming that the judge in his contempt of court case was biased in the ruling and Arpaio himself "didn't do anything wrong." He has not yet revealed any reason as to why he thinks the judge was unfair, but Arpaio assures that he has all the evidence of "bias and everything else" documented and ready to present at court. President Trump of course agrees that the ruling was unjust and that Arpaio was a "patriot" for stopping any immigrant that he thought looked suspicious.
Like Trump, Arpaio has a history of fighting against judges, consistent to his present actions. He was accused of investigating the judge who oversaw his profiling case, and made an incorrect accusation of bribery against a judge who ruled against him in 2009. His decision to try and throw his ruling, however, is unconventional, as the pardon is usually the "last word in a case," as Jeffrey Crouch, a professor at American University puts it.
Arpaio's request for his conviction to be thrown has struck even more controversy surrounding his pardon and subsequent actions. "Trump may be taking Arpaio off the hook for jail time, but he can't change history or erase the measure of justice that the court's findings represent," Cecilia Wang, a lawyer in Arpaio's racial profiling case, said.
Connection to Class/My Analysis:
Trump's pardoning of Arpaio was extremely controversial in the first place, with critics believing that Trump only rewarded Arpaio with a pardon because he was a long-time Trump supporter.
The pardon was unconventional compared to the pardons rewarded by other presidents. Arpaio's crime isn't one presidents normally consider suitable for clemency, and Trump rewarded Arpaio his pardon only eight months after the start of his presidency, whereas most presidents who have given high-profile pardons in the past have waited until the end of their presidency (Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich in 2001; George Bush pardoned Caspar W. Weinberger in 1992). Furthermore, Trump chose to pardon someone who did not officially apply for a pardon, and was not even convicted long enough to be issued a sentencing before being pardoned. Many other people have actually applied for a pardon and have been waiting years to get one, but Trump chose to pardon Arpaio instead. Pardons are usually also granted to people who express remorse for what they have done (as pardons are issues of forgiveness and not innocence), and Arpaio has been everything but apologetic for his actions.
Despite the atypical circumstances of the pardon, Trump's actions are technically legal. The Constitution gives the president the right to "grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." While it is suggested that the president take a 5 year waiting period to ensure that the petitioner is well-adjusted and law-abiding, the president is not obligated to do so and may exercise their right to pardon anytime after a federal offense has been committed. Neither the legislative branch nor the judicial branch may intervene to limit the effect of a pardon, or pass laws to withhold a pardon from any person. This is one of the places in government where separation of powers does not really apply, as the president is allowed to do as he pleases without the other two branches really checking whether he is abusing his power. However, his pardon is paradoxical, as he is pardoning someone for violating (racial profiling) the same Constitution that grants him unlimited pardoning rights.
Discussion Questions:
Do you think the president should have full control over the power to pardon? Why?
Do you think Trump's decision to pardon Arpaio was an abuse of power? Why? If yes, what steps can we, as the public, take to discourage similar behavior in the future?
Should Arpaio's court conviction be thrown? Why or why not?
Article: Trump pardons Arpaio
Arpaio asks judge to undo conviction
Fun Fact: Arpaio and Trump have the same birthday. Astrology still a pseudoscience?
8 comments:
I think that this is a very distinguished case of pardon. First, like Caroline mentioned, Arpaio hadn't submitted an application for a pardon and second, the fact that his offense was a misdemeanor, which is less than a year of jail time, is very uncommon as most people seeking presidential pardon have been convicted of felonies. I do not agree with Trump's pardon of Arpaio, since his conviction of misdemeanor is a fair one and he has not shown any hint of remorse- something that almost all previous recipients of a presidential pardon have shown before pardoned. Trump currently has a list of hundreds of people who have requested a presidential pardon from him- some who've been in jail for tens of years and in my opinion may be a little more deserving of a pardon than Arpaio- yet Arpaio is president Trump's first pardon.
However, even with all this being said, Trump's pardon of Arpaio is not unconstitutional. He is granted this full right in article II section 2 of the constitution, thus, I don't think anything can or will be done about this pardon.
And actually, Trump is not the first president to misuse this right to pardon. Presidents Jefferson, Roosevelt, Truman, Nixon, Bush, and Clinton were all similarly accused of abusing this Constitutional power for their personal advantage.
I think that the President should have the power to pardon,but I think this particular instance is a complete abuse of this power. This was not a person who really needed a presidential pardon,and so the pardoning of Arpaio was clearly a political statement by Trump. Since Arpaio was accused and found guilty of racial profiling, this pardon showed that Trump supports people with highly racists views and agendas. This is incredibly frightening as a citizen of the United States. Racism and inequality is not something that should be supported in our nation, especially not by our President or major leaders.
I believe that the power to pardon should be left in hands of the president, however I don't think that Trump has technically abused any power. While I don't agree with his decision, his pardon isn't unconstitutional since he's been granted those rights from the constitution. I agree with Lydia that this decision is slightly frightening, that this man has the ability to free anyone he chooses, as he's not the best judge of character, but It's not surprising. Trump would do something like this, though its vexing that someone like that is back on the streets. Of course I think his decision should be thrown out, the man is obviously guilty and doesn't care about his action, but is that gonna happen? No.
Technically speaking, it is fully constitutional for Trump to pardon Arpaio because the power of pardon lies in the hands of the president. However, what bothers me(and probably most people), is Trump's reason to pardon. It is not required for the president to explain his reasons for pardoning therefore there is nothing we can do about it, but it is human nature to be curious and be prompt to find out answers on our own. It is a generally known fact that Trump is pretty racist and is against the immigration of certain races, so it can surmised that Trump pardoned Arpaio due to his radical views. If Trump's reason for pardon is what it seems to be, I truly believe he doesn't deserve the right to pardon. However, like Maria stated, there is little we can do about it.
It seems like the power to pardon, as the decision of one individual (the president), should be checked by a branch of government made up of representatives in case of any unreasonable pardons (although this may not ever be necessary). This is in the general case. For Trump's pardon of Arpaio, I believe it is more of a political show, a move by Trump to suggest his seriousness in doing everything he can to limit illegal immigration, very symbolic. I don't think it gets Trump anywhere closer to his goals as the President, and lowered his public image among many Americans, making it not a very smart move.
I do believe the president should have the power to pardon individuals as it can be justified and is often used for legitimate reasons, like the many people who President Obama commuted the sentence of because they were sentenced under harsh or out-of-date drug laws, however, I think this particular pardon was an abuse of power as Arpaio was convicted of contempt of court which is the only enforcement tool possessed by the Judicial Branch. Pardoning Arpaio undermines this ability of the court system to enforce its decisions which I believe breaks the system of checks and balances outlined in our constitution. I think the president should have the moral responsibility not to pardon this type of conviction, and if the president can not hold this responsibility then unfortunately we must pass an amendment to the constitution to prevent corruption and enforce the system of checks and balances. To answer the last question I think Arpaio's conviction should not be thrown out as it would demonstrate to other law enforcement that taking actions like Arpaio is perfectly legal, which it isn't (I encourage all of you to watch a news report and look up articles about what he actually did, some of it is almost gulag level).
Edit: I forgot to mention that this pardon also shows that Trump is willing to pardon his friends to keep them out of jail. This sends a message to the Senate, House, and Muller investigations into his campaign that they won't get anywhere while he's in charge and that any officials that they find have committed a crime are likely to avoid punishment or even prosecution.
Like many have stated before, I think that the power to pardon should remain with the president. I do not agree with Trump's pardoning of Arpaio, and I think that Arpaio deserves to be punished for his racist and hateful actions. It is clearly a personal move by Trump, who is not pardoning Arpaio because he deserves to be pardoned (which he does not), but pardoning him because he shares his same personal beliefs and political views. This action clearly demonstrates that Trump is alright with racism, which should very concerning for the public. Despite this pardon being immoral and/or uncalled for, I do not think that it was an "abuse of power" by Trump to pardon Arpaio, as the power to carry out pardons such as this is given to him by the Constitution. That being said, I am not really sure when a pardon can be considered an abuse of power. Does it depend on the person who is being pardoned, how many times the president does it, or when it is done? I am not really sure, so who knows if this case was an abuse of power or not. I guess It depends on your perspective.
Post a Comment