Monday, January 13, 2020

A Glitch in the Senate Impeachment Trial of Donald Trump

There is a misunderstanding about the role the Chief Justice plays in the Senate trial of Donald Trump. The US Constitution gives the Senate the right to write rules for the trial, and the rules the majority leader is standing on are specious. They seem fair and impartial, but they un-empower the  presiding official, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court John Roberts, and can potentially enable the Republican majority to obstruct justice.

This is the text of a form email I sent to the US Supreme  Court:

There is a general misconception about the role Chief Justice Roberts will play during the Senate impeachment trial. That he is subject to the rules of the Senate is ludicrous. Federal law cannot supersede constitutional law, or it causes chaos in the system.

The House represents the Will of the people in legislation, and the Senate addresses the Rights of the people, the Executive branch addresses whether laws and practices are executable, and courts decide whether something is legal, and the Supreme Court determines whether what they are doing is constitutional. The Constitution addresses the use of power and the abuse of power, and is evolutionary. It is where we are as a nation, like owning slaves. We evolved out of slavery, but human trafficking is still occurring, but it is now unlawful. Congress can write and rewrite the laws, but even then, is what they are doing constitutional? Are they using or abusing their power?

The  House's role in impeachment addresses whether what the president is doing is where we are as a nation, and what the people will tolerate. The people rise in protest when something is not fair. The Senate must address in the trial whether what President Trump did was to deny the people their rights to a fair election and a fair trial. The Senate rules cannot supersede the Constitution. 

Where we are at any point in time is based on what we believe. Then, we rise and fall in power by the choices we make. If we make our choices based on fear and a sense of lack, we fall in power. Imagine being on a battlefield during a war is based on what that  person believes, and whether he
 can overcome his  fears decides which direction he goes from that point. He moves forward out of courage, cowers in the trenches and passes on the crisis to future generations, or is overewhelmed by fear and deserts, and if he does, he will face his fears when he is (historically) shot for desertion. When we run from fear, its gets bigger.

If the opinion of the Republican senators that Chief Justice Roberts will be the master of ceremonies, subject to the will of the Senate Rules , he is not standing  on the  principles of his role to protect the Constitution. He must stand on the principles of the Constitution, and decide whether the rules of the Senate guarantee to the people the right of a fair trial.

The premise of the presumption of innocence became a part of our legal system because no one can defend himself from prejudice and ulterior motives. Are the Democrats treating Trump unfairly by impeaching him, as some Conservatives believe? Trump has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty in court when no one else will defend Trump, it is up to the courts to do that, by ensuring the trial is not a sham.

How can the use of power and abuse of power be measured? By whether it stands on the principles of Universal Law, which stands on seven principles--equality, liberty, freedom, compassion, abundance, capacity and tolerance.  By standing on these principles of Universal Law, our nation evolves--we move forward with courage. There are seven power games that people play, and governments play five of them, and all five are related to revenge. For every power game, a principle counteracts the game. The first requirement for conflict resolution is that both sides must be considered equal, so if a trial can be considered conflict resolution, there must be equality under the law for a fair trial.

In a letter dated November 9, 2017, to the US Supreme Court, I explained how a misunderstanding about the three levels of the US legal system allows our government to constitutionally justify playing power games that are oppressive to the people. Many people see two levels--constitutional law and federal law--but leave out Universal Law, which stands on the seven principles. There are always three levels--the principles, the power and the project. Constitutional law is the power level.

Power comes from assuming responsibility, not from playing power games, because grabs for power demonstrate a lack of power.The games compensate for a fear of lack. Federal law must be a combination of both Universal Law and constitutional law or it causes chaos in our legal system. The Senate rules must address procedural rules, but cannot prevent a fair trial--or fair elections.

Sunday, September 23, 2018

Letter to Senator Wyden: Reforming Elections

The United States must start to address election reforms, first to protect our elections from Russian interference, and second, due to a sociological process known as Armageddon, it may be difficult for any major party candidate to get a  majority of the votes. The Republicans are facing this now with Trump's approval ratings hovering in the 30's, but the same thing is occurring in the Democratic Party.  In the last election, independent voters were warned not to vote for a third party candidate, and independents and moderate Conservatives were told they had to vote for a candidate who they didn't necessarily want and trust because they had to protect the US Supreme Court. 

My organization is working to create an international government based on the US Constitution, and one thing that we must address on the international government is how to hold elections, a plan that functions on a far higher level than the existing structure of any nation. With such a diversity of existing ways that officials are elected to office, what is the highest form?

We believe the highest form of elections is when anyone can run for president, and no donations or contributions are allowed. Nonprofits can hold debates and media can offer free space to candidates. Presidential elections will be held similar to tournaments--first on the local level, where candidates must offer plans that benefit everyone, and then state, regional and national levels, and candidates will progress by offering plans for each of the levels. The international government will have two presidents, and they will stand back to back, with one addressing the national level and the other, the international level. The international candidate must also solve the problems, because the same crises occur on every level.

The preemptive strike on Iraq triggered a schism around the world. It started the World Peace Movement, and every movement divides the people  into four segments--those who stands on the principles, those who have been financially affected, those whose lives have been affected and those who function for their own interests. This occurred on a global basis first, and then within nations, then within parties, and this continues to separate the people down to the individual level. As it separates, there may be some crossovers, but eventually, all candidates will hover around 25%. Any elected official knows the independents sway the election. That final 25%--the ult-rights and ult-lefts--can start rebellions.

No elected official has ever been able to get enough support to reform campaign financing to be more fair, or term limits, or a balanced budget. Attempts to go the Article V constitutional amendment route have failed. The only way that successful campaign reform can be enacted is by turning responsibility over to the States and the People through Article V, but limit the debate to the proposed international government. Everyone on the planet will be included in the debate.

Our founding fathers used a tool during debates that allowed them to reach a very high level. They "stormed the mountain." One would make a statement, and others would build and improve on it to the point where everyone agreed and was willing to carry the idea forward. Compromise doesn't work because no one fully supports the outcome, and neither does being backed into the corner. Imagine how high the proposed international government will reach if everyone is invited into the debate, and we storm the mountain.

I have kept your office informed of our progress in the creation of the proposed international government. It is normal to have active resistance to any plan from those who are in the second segment, and when they work with the fourth group, the resistance can become rebellious. The resistance ends when they see how they can get their financial support. Trump promised his supporters he would make America great (meaning prosperous) but the backbone of any economy is small business, and his plans only make the crisis worse. Our Lift the Public Plan, and economic stimulus plan that benefits everyone, can draw everyone into the plan for the international government. I gave a copy of our Lift the Public handout to Congressman DeFazio, originally in 2007, but also at his last townhall meeting in Brookings. 

My organization is hoping to start our Article V constitutional amendment drive in 2019. If you and Congressman DeFazio would like to overcome the coming economic crisis triggered by Trump's failed policy, please consider the Lift the Public Plan. It benefits everyone, including the lowest economic classes--the homeless and people on fixed incomes.