Bravo, Alan Dershowitz: Intent vs. Meaning

Alan Dershowitz gave the best argument either for or against impeachment. Since I believe this is a Constitutional question, Dershowtiz answered the question properly using an originalism or the true meaning of the impeachment clause in the Constitution. On the other hand, any constitutional arguments put forth by Democrats were about the intent of some Founders. There is a difference. If I intend to do something, it doesn't mean that I did it or did something different. Some founders intended to place maladministration in the Constitution which would make abuse of power an impeachable offense, but that is not the meaning behind the clause and those words were never added because it would cripple the executive branch. The words in the clause for impeachable offensives are treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors. Some believe that maladministration may be found in misdemeanors, but that is not true. According to Blackstone, high crimes and misdemeanors were synonymous. Thus, for the president to be impeached he must have committed a crime.

Furthermore, Democrats have argued that Trump's "intent" was for personal gain. First, we do not know what anyone's intent is. And second, even if that is true, every president has abused power for personal gain, no exceptions. When Obama lied about the events in Benghazi two month before an election it was for personal gain. Is this an abuse of power, of course, but lying and being dishonest is not a crime or an impeachable offense (perjury may be different). When Obama made the Iran treaty (without Senate approval) and gave them billions in cash, it was for personal gain. All presidents worry about public opinion and their legacy more so then they do about doing things the right way. Obama violated the Constitution in his actions and the right of thousands of persons that were the victims of Iran terrorism that was paid for by the Treaty. This was an abuse of power and should have been decided by SCOTUS, but I would not say it is impeachable.

Imagine if we were all put in prison for what we intended and not our actual actions. Not a single person will avoid jail time. This is dangerous and every president will be subject to impeachment. In other words, impeaching Trump will eliminate checks and balances and protections placed in the Constitution. Some may want to refer to the case Taylor v. United States in my book Defending Freedom of Contract to see the dangers of using intend over true meaning. Following intent allows opinions, biases, and balancing test in constitutional interpretations and will ensure not every citizen will be treated equally. Following the true meaning is the only way to ensure every is treated equally.

The Impeachment Chaos is Crazy

I am all for having witnesses and the right people testify at any trial. However, I only thought a president could be impeached by the House if he committed a crime. It is apparent the House impeached Trump without all the evidence otherwise they would not be trying to garner more witnesses in the Senate hearing. This tells me they convicted a president of a crime without presenting all the evidence and they are not confident what he did is a crime otherwise they would not more witnesses. I think this is dangerous precedent. What is to stop any House from impeaching any president based on flimsy evidence and hope the Senate can complete the job. This is wrong in so many ways. First, it says you are guilty until proven innocent and denies the president of many rights found in the constitution. Second, this type of behavior is divisive.

Right now, from everything I hear, every President can be impeached. For instance, the Obama Iran deal is a perfect example. In this deal, Obama moved unilaterally and signed a treaty with Iran including giving them billions in funding. Unlike Trump's constitutionally legal reason for withholding funds to Ukraine, Obama's deal violated the Constitution in many regards. First, money decision are to come from the house and second, Treaties have to be confirmed by the Senate. Sure, Obama violated the constitution but I am not going to say he deserved to be impeached for his actions. The proper action is to let SCOTUS decide the legalities and the correct separation of powers. It is the way things have been done for nearly 250 years

Iran Downing Airliner was no Mistake

Iran finally admitted to unintentionally shooting down a commercial airliner killing 176 persons. They said the action was mistake. A mistake is something that everyone moves on from without any consequences. This was no mistake for several reasons:

First, if someone gets behind the wheel of car inebriated and kills another person that action was intentional and the person is charged with manslaughter. Maybe the person did not intend to kill anyone and said it was a mistake, but there are consequences for such actions. The Iran situation was no different.

Second, if Iran was not a terror state and was instead a responsible government, the action would have never happened. If Iran was not holding American hostages, attacking Embassies, seizing boats, blowing up oil refineries, killing American soldiers, pursuing nuclear arms while declaring death to America and Israel, and other aggressive acts, all of this would have been avoided. Iran pushed the envelope and were finally punished by the United States by taking out their top General who carries out their acts of terror. Of course Iran could not let that act go and retaliated with a missile strike against American troops in Iraq. The Iranian's shot down a commercial jet fearing it was a U.S. warplane seeking retaliation.

Of course, liberals blame Trump. They blame Trump for everything that is bad. It is unfortunate that they cannot see the difference between a rogue nation supporting terrorism and another nation defending their citizens (the Constitution's meaning is to protect all citizens equally). By blaming Trump and not Iran, the Dems showed their true colors. I understand disliking Trump, but the man is not responsible for everything that is bad. Of course Trump would never be found guilty in a court of law and held responsible for another State's actions. Maybe these ignorant Dems should learn some basic law concepts.

Shooting down a commercial airliner is no different than any other action taken by Iran over the past 40 to 50 years. That is no mistake, it is just history repeating itself time and time again.

What was Mueller Investigating?

After the Horowitz report was released last week, I have one question: What was Mueller investigating? Supposedly he was looking into Russian collusion or interference into our election for 2 years. He found nothing but convicted a bunch of persons for lying to Congress and for tax evasion. That is fine, no one should lie to Congress and evade taxes. But the Horowitz report showed evidence that not only was the investigation into Trump started on a very thin predicate and the investigation was maintained based on 17 violation to FISA warrants, but the report showed there was Russian collusion into our election. In particular, the investigation showed the Russians provided Richard Steele misinformation that was published by the media and became known as the Trump dossier. Incidentally, the dossier was paid for by the Democratic National Committee (DNC). When Mueller was asked about the dossier, he said he did not know anything about it. I find this very hard to believe since the dossier was published in newspapers. Why wasn't Mueller interested in this information? Was the Mueller investigation as biased as the network coverage of the Trump dossier. Every network (other than Fox) and every news publication (other than National Review and the Hill) said the dossier was not used to obtain a FISA warrant? But the dossier was the only document used to obtain a warrant on Carter Page according to Horowitz. Yes, that is right an uncorroborated dossier filled with Russian misinformation and paid for by the DNC, was used so the FBI can have surveillance on a member of the Trump campaign. How is this not Russian interference? Why isn't someone in jail for this biased malfeasance after several investigations. How is this any different than Watergate? This should scare everyone.

After studying the Constitution and writing my book "Defending Freedom of Contract", I change my view about many things. One thing I changed my mind about was any type of Ex Parte Court. Why? According to Horowitz 98% of FISA warrants are issued and every Ex Parte case in my book always went against the person who had no representation. What a surprise, anyone who is not represented loses. I understand the need to be able to fight terrorism, but at what cost. My liberal friends were right when they told me the government would abuse this power. But were is the liberal outrage now? I was wrong, but how come no one else is admitting when they are wrong during this process? Do not trust the media anymore.

Prout v. Starr and Impeachment

When anyone asks me what is my favorite Supreme Court case, I say Prout v. Starr. Prout was an obscure case decided in 1903. Even most constitutional scholars are aware of the case and its importance. If you want detail about the case, I suggest your read my book "Defending Freedom of Contract". Prout was an 11th Amendment case where Justice George Shiras held that all provisions, clauses, and amendments in the constitutional are all on equal footing. From any mathematical distributive properties principles one can easily assume that if all clauses are equal than so to are the powers of federalism, separation of powers, and checks and balances. To some this may be seem obvious, but the history of US law is to violate these principles and the Trump impeachment fiasco is no different. The Prout decision declared the state governments could not hide behind the 11th amendment declaring state sovereignty so they can default on contracts (protected by the contracts clause) with citizens. In other words, if the law fails one provision of the constitution, then the entire law is void. It seems obvious, but trust me, this is not how modern 11th amendment cases are decided (see Seminole Tribe v. Florida). After all, if the government does not obtain proper warrants to search a property, the evidence found is inadmissible in a court of law because they violated the 4th Amendment.

So, the findings of the Horowitz report are very troubling. If the FBI had a legal predicate to open a case against the Trump campaign, they certainly did not have any legal right to continue the case by violating the 4th Amendment. I believe this puts most of the findings of the Mueller investigation into question including all the convictions of General Flynn and the others. The only reason any information was obtained was because a case was opened and sustained using questionable and unlawful methods. If separation of powers are equal, then the justice department is violating that principle to go after the executive branch using unlawful methods. The same is true for the Trump impeachment. Congress cannot bend the law to uphold the Constitution. Even if Trump is guilty of some crime, by prohibiting him due process is a violation of the Constitution. Interestingly, one charge against Trump holds no water: Obstructing Congress. Congress said Trump obstructed justice by not honoring their subpoenas. This is not true since the SCOTUS decided to hear the case about subpoenas issued against Trump for his tax returns. If SCOTUS is hearing these cases, then the question of Congressional subpoenas against the executive has yet to been addressed. If it is yet to been addressed then how is Trump obstructing Congress?

The bottom line is that the principles found in Prout are very important and make understanding the Constitution easy. When the court inputs biases and opinions then they are saying clauses are not equal and they must put in place balancing tests and other criteria to address why they see for instance, the first amendment having more power than say the 9th or 10th amendment. This is how SCOTUS loses its way.

Every American won the Lottery

I do not play the lottery because I already won the lottery. I have had a great life and I am lucky to have been born in the United States. In fact, every American has won the lottery, but most do not realize it. How do I know this? If everyone realized how lucky they are to be Americans, they would not be so polarized with so much lack of tolerance for each other. This is unfortunate because it goes against every principle the Constitution was founded on. The first amendment is a perfect example of tolerance for both freedom of speech (including speech we do not agree with) and freedom of religion.

Sure, there is poverty in America but there is no other country in the world where your chances to get out poverty is so high. I lived in poverty and abuse, but had that happened anywhere else my outcome may not have been good. All that said, partisans like to polarize Americans as haves and have nots by demonizing the wealthy. Why do we demonize success and everything that America has to offer? This is why immigrants want to come to this country? Why do liberals and conservatives want to change the greatest country on the face of the planet to be like other socialized countries? Yes, conservatives are also guilty of this practice. In fact, the movement of the United States from a republic to a democracy and now inching closer to a socialist state everyday, violates the principles of constitution including separation of powers, federalism, and checks and balances.

We are all lucky but fail to realize it based on our ignorance and disrespect to the constitution. I know everyone says the understand the constitution. I always felt that way too, until I started to study it. Then I realized the constitution does not have a political ideology and does not follow any single person's ideology. How do I know this? Because everyone famous American I studied has failed to uphold the constitution under every circumstance. If you think all of your ideas and thoughts follow the constitution, you are wrong. Why are there so many different types of scrutiny tests and balancing tests in Supreme Court decisions? Because the justices are not upholding the constitution.

I wish we would all wise up and not think we are all smarter than we are. Learn by reading my book "Defending freedom of contract". Learn the truth about the law.