washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/0…
FWIW, however, here are some of the column's dubious legal claims: /3
Well, no—or at least he can't do so *because* they are his friends or enemies. That would be a violation of the POTUS’s obligation to take care the law is faithfully executed. /4
Actually, Congress has conferred that authority on the Attorney General, and it’s an open question whether the statute reserves a implied “directory” authority to the POTUS. /5
Nope. Indeed, it’s been common ground since the founding that the POTUS can’t personally exercise authorities Congress has assigned to other officers ... /6
supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/1…) /7
No, that delegation (actually, an assignment of authority) is effected by statutes *Congress* has enacted. /8
Not necessarily so—and certainly not where, as here or in the Travel Ban case (or Nixon’s directives to Archibald Cox), the intervention is plainly unlawful ... /9
Actually, it is “arguable.” To be sure, there might not be a way to undo such a pardon, but if Trump exercises that authority for impermissible reasons, he’ll be acting unconstitutionally. /11
justsecurity.org/61975/legal-ar… /12