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.

The Two Clause of the Second Amendment are Wedded

The Second Amendment of the Unite States’ Constitution contains two clauses that are by their nature and their presence in the same amendment, connected.

The Second Amendment is as follows:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The first clause states that a well regulated militia is important to the security of a free state. 

Militia, in context of the early years of the forming of the nation, is a quasi-military organization of able bodied people that can be expected to either supplement a standing army in time of need or act as a defensive army against the power of the national government in an attempt to control a state.

Under the Articles of Confederation, a passage instructed individual states to identify and retain able bodied men to be part of the individual state militia and that they were to be minimally equipped with tents, field pieces and arms.

The Articles of Confederation included this line because the authors found that the length of the Revolutionary War had a damping effect on individual state militias. 

The militias lacked in able leadership, became undisciplined, individuals tended to go awal and state and local communities preferred their militia to stay either close to home or at the very least stay within the state.

During the writing of the Constitution the near catastrophic experience from the Revolutionary War and the attempted solution to the problem in the Articles of Confederation was not overlooked or ignored. 

James Madison and many legislators in the 13 colonies noted that the original Constitution that was being considered before them did not support a well regulated and properly equipped militia. 

In their own attempt to shore up the state militias, James Madison and the legislators of the colonies demanded and indeed did place in the Constitution the first clause of the second amendment, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.”

Which, of course, brings to light the definition of a “state.”     

First, the term state did not refer to individual states in general.

States, being a geographically defined area of land, were the primary organization of the country at the time and still is today.

The individual states were expected to be a balancing fulcrum for the power of the national government.

But, in this context, the term state in the time period of the country was meant to mean a political organization, that is, a country as we define it today. 

At the time “states,” meaning government, were either of two kinds; a state where the power rested in the people or were the power rested in a monarch.

A “free state”, in this context, was a country where the power rested with the people.

So, for the first clause of the Second Amendment, its meaning is that a militia that is able to muster men that are properly armed and trained is important to a free country, therefore, it must be maintained.

As for the second, it is less complicated but still connected to the first clause.

Again, back to the meanings during the Revolutionary times.  

Money was tight and the burgeoning government at the time could not always be relied on to provide the funding necessary to equip the troops properly that were fighting the English. 

It was accepted, unlike our military now, that if you had your own guns, you were encouraged to bring them for your use.  This alleviated some of the pressure on the short supplies and enable someone who doesn’t have access to their own weapons to have one.

All the guns used by the individual at the time were not military style in the way we know of them now. 

Most guns were used for hunting, or on the frontier of the country to defend against Native American’s whose land was being stolen from them by the European invaders. 

All military style weapons, cannons, mortars and howitzers, were retained by the Army and the state and local militia.

Even the guns that were owned by the military were taken back by the army or the state and local militia for storage to keep them maintained and available.

Here is the important point on this part of the second clause. 

The Constitution at the time, forbid keeping a national standing army. 

There was an understanding that the country in time of need would rely on the state and local militia to fill the void of having no army at ready till a regular army could be mustered. (going back of course to the first clause in the amendment)

So, those that were part of the militia and under its direct control were encouraged to own and maintain their weapons for use in any conflict that might arise.

So, the meaning behind the second clause of the second amendment.  That individuals that are part of the regulated militia are not only encouraged to own their own weapons, but states and local governments must not restrict their ownership for those that are part of the militia.

In my opinion, the two clauses of the second amendment are wedded. 

Weapon ownership can be restricted for those that do not belong to a well-regulated militia organized by the state or local government and the right of the federal government to set standards for the organization and regulation of the militias are not only Constitutional, but necessary.

The First Obligation of Government is the Safety and Security of its People

Governments are formed to do any number of things from mere defense to the total control of the lives of the people that fall under its jurisdiction.

The government of the United States was formed for the reasons stated in the preamble of the Constitution:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Many of the items in the preamble imply that it was formed for the safety and security of the people that live within its borders.

In fact, the Constitution was written because the legislatures of the 13 colonies sent representatives to Philadelphia to find a solution to the chaos that was developing within each state and between the states under the Articles of Confederation.

The safety and security of the states and the people living in each state was in jeopardy.

At the very beginning of the Constitution, to make the point about providing for the safety and security of the people living with in the United States’ borders, Article One establishes the lawmaking bodies; the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Also, in Article two, the executive branch was formed whose job it is to enforce the laws passed by the House of Representatives, the Senate and signed into law by the president.

In addition to the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence also clearly states that the safety and security of the people under its jurisdiction should be the primary functions of government.

It states in the opening of the second paragraph, that, “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are the primary goals of humans. 

The order of the words in the phrase are not in suspect.  It is clear, that the authors meant that their lives were of primary importance to them and to their posterity.    

What ever rights are stated in the Constitution or in the Declaration of Independence, from religion, privacy, press, voting and the right to bear arms, the primary function of the government of the United States is to enact laws that protect people from harm.  

The obligation stated in the preamble of the Constitution that the United States government provide for the safety and security of the people, translates to a right of safety and security by the people living under its jurisdiction.

Safety and security are rights greater than any other of the rights, expressed or implied, in the Constitution. 

Challenge the Courts About Restricting Guns

There are those that say we can not enact stricter gun laws because the Constitution and the Supreme Court have clearly expressed that any of these laws would not be Constitutional.

The best of these people and legislators’ site numerous cases and portions of the Constitution to support their claim.

But the same people that claim they cannot enact gun restrictions are the very same people that keep passing legislation restricting or forbidding abortions.

The Supreme Court has ruled more than a generation ago that abortions are Constitutional.

It has not stopped the various governing bodies around the country of passing legislation to find “wiggle” room in restricting abortions.

Their attempt is to challenge Roe v Wade and restrict abortion everyway possible and allow the courts to decide the law’s fate.

So, why don’t the very same legislative bodies also try to find “wiggle” room in the Supreme Court’s decision on weapons?

My thoughts are that it must be because the NRA has serious money invested in these legislators that makes it difficult to impossible for them to attempt passing legislation.

Gov. Whitmer Statement on MPART Director Steve Sliver Testifying Before Congress

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE   July 24, 2019   Contact: BrownT56@michigan.gov    Gov. Whitmer Statement on MPART Director Steve Sliver Testifying Before Congress LANSING – Today Gov. Gretchen Whitmer released the following statement commenting on Steve Sliver, Executive Director of the Michigan PFAS Action Response Team, testifying beforethe U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Environment:   “I’m pleased to see the committee focusing on this critical issue and I appreciate the continued leadership from Michigan’s congressional delegation on this evolving issue. Michigan has and will continue to be a leader in identifying PFAS contamination and holding responsible parties accountable, but we need additional federal resources to support continued testing and cleanup of PFAS in Michigan.   “Michigan has long called for the federal government to establish national standards to protect the nation's drinking water from PFAS contamination, but we can no longer wait for the Trump Administration to act. That’s why I have directed MPART to establish enforceable MCLs for PFAS in our drinking water.  "My main priority remains to protect public health by finding real and permanent solutions toensure that all Michiganders know that they can trust the water coming out of their taps.”   Gov. Whitmer Directs MDEQ To File a Request for Rulemaking to Establish PFAS Drinking Water Standards