Riggs V. Palmer On Presidential Self-Pardons

In a serial of events besides improbable for a made for tv set pic or Brian Kalt’s wonderful Constitutional Cliffhangers, the president of the the States is murdered inward Washington, DC.  Suspicion falls on the quondam Vice-President, right away President of the United States. Five witnesses, all of whom run past times prevarication detector tests, claim to receive got seen the novel President gun downwardly the old occupant of the White House.  The novel President’s fingerprints are constitute on the murder weapon.   Before farther investigation, however, the novel President exercises his ability every bit Chief Executive as well as pardons himself.  Aware that the Speaker of the House is a fellow member of the other party, partisan members of Congress stall off impeachment. They insist that the quondam Vice-President has a right to the office, fifty-fifty if he has murdered the old President, because the Constitution mandates that the Vice President receive got percentage upon the driblet dead of the President, no thing what.  They justify the pardon on the same basis.

Common police trace fans may recognize the analogy to Riggs v. Palmer (1889), a police trace professor hypothetical come upwards to life.  Elmer Palmer murdered his grandad inward guild to gain his inheritance.  Palmer pointed out that New York police trace required strict adherence to the price of the will, no thing what.  The New York Court of Appeals gave Palmer the proverbial finger.  Judge Earl’s persuasion bluntly declared, “No 1 shall hold upwards permitted to net turn a profit past times his ain fraud, or to receive got wages of his ain wrong, or to constitute whatever claim upon his ain iniquity, or to commence belongings past times his ain crime.”

Riggs v. Palmer explains why neither the fictional Vice-President who gains percentage past times murdering the President nor our actual President receive got a right to their percentage as well as may pardon themselves for the crimes they receive got committed to gain that office.  Judge Earl correctly points out that all statutes are read inward lite of mutual feel as well as mutual law.  That mutual police trace teaches both that "no 1 shall hold upwards permitted . . . to constitute whatever claim upon his ain iniquity" and, every bit discussed inward Bonham’s Case (1620), no someone may hold upwards a guess inward his ain case.  A President may no to a greater extent than escape judge for their crimes, item the crimes they receive got committed to gain the presidency, than a murderer may claim the right to inherit from their victim.

The final percentage of the hypothetical raises a disturbing interrogation that police trace does non answer.  Has American politics reached that phase of corruption where 1 political party would tolerate a known criminal every bit president if the choice was empowering the other party?