5 min Click here to listen to this article

Share via Close extra sharing options Email Facebook X LinkedIn Threads Reddit WhatsApp Copy Link URL Copied! Print

Copy Link URL Copied!

This is read by an automated voice. Please report any issues or inconsistencies here.

In 1788, Virginia convened a convention to debate ratification of the new U.S. Constitution, promulgated in Philadelphia the year before.

The pardon power proved to be a sticking point for some delegates. George Mason, the primary author of Virginia’s own constitution, was among those worried that the unchecked ability to unilaterally pardon criminality could lead to abuses of power. What if the president “may frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself”?

James Madison acknowledged that this would be a serious abuse but argued there was a remedy.

“There is one security in this case to which gentlemen may not have adverted,” Madison said, “if the president be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; [and] they can remove him if found guilty.”

This episode has gathered fresh attention in the wake of the Jan. 6 riots, and the impeachment trial it ignited. President Trump was impeached but not convicted.

That was a mistake in my opinion. But I’m not here to relitigate it. I want to be forward-looking.

The British statesman Edmund Burke famously argued that one of the “fundamental rules” of a decent society was that “no man should be judge in his own cause.”

For the founders, this insight informed the logic of the entire constitutional project. Burke’s observation was so universally agreed upon it often came up — sometimes without attribution — in debates at the Constitutional and ratifying conventions.

Madison invokes the idea in Federalist 10, in the context of faction and the need to have separation of powers. “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause; because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.”

Alexander Hamilton cites it in Federalist 80 as the reason why federal courts should adjudicate disagreements between........

© Los Angeles Times