Trump Allowing Israel to Refuse Entry by Members of the House is a Treasonous Act

President Trump used his power as president to the detriment of United States’ citizens and provided aid and comfort to a foreign power. 

Whatever power the president of the United States has or doesn’t have, he must always use that 

power in support of United States’ citizens. 

To take the side of a foreign state, he would be acting in the best interest of a foreign power and not the United States.

To take such action is Treasonous. 

1) When Trump said on fakebook, on twitter and other media outlets that Israel should not allow two of our members of the House of Representatives into Israel, he was not acting in the best interest of United States’ citizens.

2) By allowing Israel to block entry to the members of the House of Representatives, Trump is overstepping his executive power by reducing the ability of these two members of the House to experience themselves the result of Israeli policy on both the people of Israel and on the non-voting people that are under the care and watchful eye of Israel.

3) Trump is also reducing the power of Congress to oversee the budget and actions taken by Trump and that of an ally, Israel.

It is in the power of Congress, both explicitly and implicitly in the Constitution, to oversee the President.

By encouraging a foreign power to block entry of members of the House of Representatives to their country, Trump overstepped his power and reduced the power of the House of Representatives to carry out their function.

Action Trump should take:

Trump should publicly rebuke Israel for their action.

Trump should send a couple of Israel’s diplomats’ home each week until Israel relents on their action.

Trump, by the emergency power of the executive order, should reduce the amount of aide being provide Israel and hinge restoration on the reversal of their policy.

If Trump doesn’t take the above actions to force Israel to allow the members of the House entry and is not held accountable for his actions, he will do it again.

Given the statements made by Trump over the last few days directly relating to this situation, the attacks Trump has made on the members of Congress over the last couple of months, to the praise Netanyahu gave Trump after the Israeli Prime Minister won the election, the Trump’s encouragement for Israel to refuse entry and not pressuring Israel to left the ban on any member of the House of Representatives into Israel is Trump’s Treasonous acts.

Copyright by:

Morris Hagerman

morrishagermanhome@gmail.com

Eric's Law Violates the 5th and 6th Amendments

This post is in opposition to a proposed law entitled “Eric’s Law.”

It would allow a second jury, or capital jury, to be impaneled in the trial of a defendant that is found guilty of a capital crime, but the trial jury did not come to a unanimous decision on the death penalty.

The capital jury would decide if the death penalty should be imposed since the trial jury couldn’t conclude about the punishment.

Here is the link: Eric’s Law

To start, both the 5^th and 6^th amendments are presented. 

5^th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; (1) nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

6^th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; (2) to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

First, reference 1 from the 5^th amendment.

(1)          nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb

The proposed law is an attempt to get a death penalty verdict when the trial jury cannot fully agree on the death penalty.

If that is in doubt, when the bill was introduced, its sponsor, Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) stated:

 “…would allow a new jury to be impaneled if a first jury does not reach a unanimous decision on a defendant’s [capital punishment] sentence…”

It means, if the trial jury doesn’t hand down a capital punishment decision, then the prosecutors get to try again.

This would be placing the accused in “jeopardy of life or limb” a second time for the same offense.

The accused would need to make a defense a second time, violating the intent of the 5^th amendment.

But, sense the accused can’t be placed on trial again because of the nasty 5^th amendment, they will seat another jury and not retry.

This is just what would happen in Pre-Constitutional times in America. 

If England could not get the verdict it wanted, or if the jury did not issue the punishment they wanted, they tried again and again.

In the end, the same jury that hears the case, the trial jury, should be the only jury that both judges the case and the decision on the accused’s fate.

Now, reference 2 from the 6^th amendment.

(2)          to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor

The trial jury would have the benefit of hearing from witnesses on both sides of the argument.

The trial jury would see and hear the evidence, which is presumed, the capital jury would also have access to the same evidence. 

But the trial jury would have a benefit that is doubtful the capital jury would have. 

The trial jury would have the benefit of looking into the eyes of the people that are witnesses and making judgments on their character.

If indeed, the capital jury did have access to those witnesses again, it would clearly be a second trial and violate the 5^th amendment.

So, the capital jury would not be allowed to hear from those witnesses.

The capital jury would only be allowed to review the trial transcripts.

This process of seeing and hearing from the witnesses is not only important in deciding on the guilt of the accused but also the punishment, if any, the accused should receive.

The capital jury will not have the benefit of both seeing and hearing the evidence directly from the witnesses, missing the character analysis. 

This process will be violating the clause of the 6^th amendment above referenced as number 2.

The proposed, “Eric’s Law” is a sham and should be seen for that. 

It violates a 5^th amendment clause that a person should not be place on trial twice for the same crime.

Additionally, it violates a clause in the 6^th amendment that witnesses should be presented on both sides of the argument. 

This law is an attempt to get a capital punishment verdict, no matter what the jury that heard the case decides.

Dana Loesch and Superbeets by Humann

Humann Corporation is the marketing company behind Superbeets.  It is a weight loss and energy drink.

Recently on television, Dana Loesch was their spokesperson.

Ms. Loesch is of course the past provocateur and passionate spokesperson for the National Rifle Association (NRA). 

Here is a message I sent to Humann via messager, a post on their facebook page, an email to the company, a chat message, now here on the blog and will post on facebook on the political pages.

It is inconceivable to me how you could have taken on a spokesperson like Dana Loesch.

 

She is one of the most divisive provocateurs in our culture today.  Her strong ties to the National Rifle Association has positioned her as a gun toting right wing zealot.

 

By your association with Ms. Loesch, you have closely tied your organization and product to the National Rifle Association.  The NRA is partly responsible for all the mass shootings in America.    

 

There are plenty of people that will not use your product because of your ties with Dana Loesch, including me.

 

I will write about this on my blog, post on social media and make sure my fellow Democrats know about this.