You're by far not the first one to bring this topic up and it's even been discussed in the media. I wouldn't be shocked if in a few years someone close to the administration leaks that Cheney had been urging Bush for just that kind of pardon.

Give me a freaking break. If Bush tried this Congress would fight it back by passing a law barring the president from pardoning himself. If challenged, the supreme court would easily rule that that founders never intended presidential pardons to be used as a blank check protection for the president from breaking laws and ignoring the Constitution. After all, we just came out of a revolutionary war to free ourselves from a dictator when the Constitution was written, and the point of it is to limit what the government can do. Surely your grasp of history can't be this lacking.

Here we go.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...patrol-agents/

I'm afraid it's not my grasp of history that's lacking. The debate about including the pardon power was a spirited one, for just the reasons you mention. The founders had fresh memories of monarch-like abuse of such power. Ultimately they thought it was more for good than for bad to include.

I frankly don't have a clue what Congress would do if Bush were to preemptively pardon himself, mostly because the idea is so ridiculous it strains credulity.

What I do know from an abstract view is, Congress has zero constitutional power to ratify the presidential pardon. Likewise the Supreme Court. It's amusing that in your fervor to limit what you think is unconstitutional, you demand that the Congress and Supreme Court behave in an unconstitutional way. Do tell: on what constitutional clause do your base your determination that those two branches have this right?

Blue, just because something is bad doesn't mean it is also unconstitutional. I am about as off-the-Bush-bandwagon as you can get, but I don't think there is anything that can be done if he issues himself a pardon, or anyone else for that matter. And pardons can, and have, been issued for future crimes. Whether or not something is bad policy is irrelevant to whether or not the Constitution allows it. Congress cannot override the Constitution by statute. The Supreme Court has no precedent which would permit it to say the Constitution has been violated. Like it or not, the purpose of the pardon power is eliminated if the pardon can be reviewed and/or revoked. Nobody wants Bush to issue a pardon for himself or others in his administration, but I can almost guarantee he will.

By the way, a Bush pardon for himself isn't a "preemptive pardon." It is would be a pardon for all actions undertaken while in office (i.e. for acts that have already occurred, not for future unspecified acts).

If Bush pardons himself, it doesn't prevent:

1. Congressional inquiry and hearings
2. Civil lawsuits
3. And resultant shaming

Which should all be done. Just the face that he had to pardon himself is evidence of his malfeasance.

With respect to each:

1. So? It can embarrass him, but I think he has demonstrated that doesn't bother him much. Other than that, no power to do anything.

2. Not exactly. Supreme Court cases indicate that it is extraordinarily difficult to hold a president civilly liable for official acts undertaken while in office (which actually makes a lot of sense if you think about it- we don't want presidents paralyzed because they are considering personal liability questions ahead of what may be best for the nation).

3. More than already?

You really don't see the absurdity in arguing that the president has the Contitutional right to pardon himself? The Supreme Court would not be acting unconstitutionally if they were to rule that a president's interpretation of his pardoning power does not extend to pardoning himself. To rule otherwise would basically destroy the Constitution because it would mean a president could pretty much get away with anything, which is clearly not the intent of those who wrote that document.

That's a very heart-warming paragraph for an Internet message board, but if you expect that argument to actually hold up in a court of law, you'd need to provide a better legal basis than that.

is there any legitimate discussion that Bush intends to issue a pardon for himself for past crimes during his term of office?

What "crimes" are speaking of?

is there any allegation of financial improprieties?

He hasn't testified in front of Congress, so he can't be guilty of impeding justice.

What legitimate "crimes" are people hypothesizing?