So, it seems that 33 Democrats in Congress are trying to get the judge in the Joe Arpaio case to declare the Presidential Pardon invalid.    
This proves something I have suspected all along.  None of these nitwit Liberal/Progressive retards has ever read the Constitution.

The republicans have always interpreted the constitution to how they see it to their benefit. Was it constitutional to have the republican senate block the nomination of Merrick Garland to the SC? So please, give us a break....And wasn't this Moore character who won the Alabama house kick out the courts for not following the constitution?..Look it up.
And what's the attraction with this Sheriff John guy, Arpaio? Even the blue hairs in Arizona can't stand him. Didn't he run for dog catcher and got his ass kick? He's played out in Arizona, except to you.

Of course it was constitutional for the senate to delay voting on a nomination to the SC.  The constitution says the president shall appoint and the senate confirm, and the details of how confirmation battles occur, their timing etc, is all left to the senate.  That is using the rules to your benefit, not bending or breaking them.  There is a difference.

The pardon power is however absolute, and left entirely to the president, there are no constitutional qualifiers there.  People always hate some Presidential pardons, and it is of course open to abuse, perfectly constitutional, anticipated by the Federalist Papers, abuse.    Don't like it?  Pass an amendment (or the modern lib version, persuade Anthony Kennedy that it would be cooler).

OK, we agree, Moore is not a constitutionalist (PS- he's an exception, Originalism is the dominant conservative approach).

Libs never can get over that the Constitution is a specific rule book, not an open document that simply says whatever is BAD is unconstitutional and whatever is GOOD is constitutional.  Was prohibition of alcohol good? Opinions vary. Was it constitutional?  It wasn't, then it was constitutionally mandated, then it was unconstitutional again, because words got added to and then deleted from the rule book.

Presidential pardons involve only Federal crimes that do not involve impeachment.   Arpaio was pardoned for a judicial contempt charge.  Contempt is not a Federal crime; it is a punitive procedure that promotes the integrity and independent power afforded to the Judicial branch.  

This renders a presidential pardon void.  There is precedent on both sides of the issue and it is currently not known how Judge Bolton will decide this issue.   But given that Trump has already alienated the Judiciary, only made worse by his impromptu and Ill advised pardon in the first place, Arpaio may not be happy with the outcome.

It was just a question, hence the "??"...So yes the senate was skirting  their authority., they push it to their advantage, It was a republican millennial move. It was my way or the highway. I want it now.
And what the fuck does, "Originalism is the dominant conservative approach" ,mean ? What you're say is that, "Let's play with the constitution to best fix our agenda". I think you just BS'd yourself.
Republicans, our new millennials.

you are obviously clueless. Try reading the Constitution. Which was my point in the first place. The Constitution places no limit or restraint on the Presidential power to pardon. A person does not even have to be charged or convicted of a specific crime.  READ THE CONSTITUTION !  There are no precedents for challenging a Presidential Pardon. It is absolute.

I quote Article II, Sec. 2 Clause 1

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

That last part limits presidential power to Federal crimes and does not allow pardons for impeachment from any office,  the president cannot pardon those charged or convicted of State crimes.  Nor can the president pardon either state or federal officials who have been impeached ( including himself).  

That sure sounds like a limitation on pardon power to the rest of the world.  Why does it not sound like that to you?

about the part regarding state vs federal crimes.   However,  the original basis for the post was that 33 dimocrats were challenging Trump's pardon of Joe Arpaio for contempt brought by the DOJ in Federal court. And that no where in the Constitution does it give power for anyone to review, revoke or even challenge the pardon once given by the POTUS.

pardon power is not only limited by the express limitations in Article I but also by other provisions of the Constitution, primarily the power of the other co-equal branches to enforce their authority. Criminal contempt in federal court is certainly an “offense against the United States” but if the president can pardon someone for criminal contempt of court, the court lacks its primary weapon to enforce its orders. There is old S CT precedent saying the president can pardon criminal contempt but the Dems say this is effectively overruled by newer cases a la Nixon limiting the executive’s authority.

The same would be true for contempt of Congress. If the president’s men can go before Congress and refuse to answer questions because they know the president will pardon them, Congress’s ability to perform its duties is severely limited.

So while you are correct that reading the Constitution is the way to start, what the Constitution expressly says is not necessarily conclusive.

That would be Article  II- not I. LOL.

Sheriff John is way beyond your time. He was a bit of a TV noon time folklore clown.
But you're too young to know, and my guess is that you're still wet behind the ears...
And that birth certificate thing, really?...Obama served two terms and was never challenged by that nonsense....Just the crazies chasing their tail, for what?

-- Modified on 10/2/2017 9:36:33 PM

...on August 4, 1962.  He said he had a feeling that little Barry would someday grow up to be President.  Here is the old black and white kinescope to prove it:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwfIanJ96d8

 

I hear menarsche once "pulled a train" but I don't think it was Engineer Bill's.

If the Founders meant that the President's power to grant clemency or pardon could be limited by the judiciary or Congress, then they would have said so.