Citizenry – USA Gov Policy

–A guest editorial by U.S. Army Chaplain Don Zapsic, Jr., (ret.)–

The question of what it means to be a U.S. citizen is a seldom-deliberated topic in the public square. Most Americans become citizens thru no choice or effort of their own. They are simply born into it via the geographic location of their birthplace. Each American is initially assigned a group identity based upon race and gender with a host of other descriptors to follow throughout the course of a lifetime. It is a tribal process designed to divide, conquer, and control large segments of society life for unpatriotic purposes. Relatively few are properly equipped to defend, preserve and promote the institution of citizenship in terms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Ironically, many politically-active Americans enjoy certain rights and privileges without promoting the very freedom that allows them to do so. Others simply fail to recognize the erosion of civil liberties in an age of distraction offering constant entertainment at the expense of lasting prosperity.

Freedom is a fairly relative concept depending upon what a person wants to do. Take Saudi Arabia for example. As a Muslim, I would have total freedom to practice my chosen religion. I am however a Christian and would be hard pressed to find one legal church in the Islamic kingdom. In case you’re wondering, there aren’t any. In a similar vein, exercising one’s right to be active in a political party is not always synonymous with promoting individual liberty. A “good” Democrat or Republican in this regard does not necessarily constitute being a constructive citizen. If adhering to, or promoting a certain political agenda that holds no regard for the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of others, then it is simply tyranny by another name. It is instructive to consider that pre-World War II Germany voted away their freedom under the umbrella of a democratically-held election in favor of Adolph Hitler.
If the learners fail to fulfill these requirements of your spouse. order levitra Although in the United States, the Federal tadalafil cheap online Drug Administration doesn’t approve drugs bought out of country, some well-respected doctors know of reputable online sources and will pass that information along if asked. This herbal supplement has been established regencygrandenursing.com buy viagra from india without harming those who are affected with diabetes, heart disease, etc. Sildenafil citrate is more effective than its competitors as Food & Drug Association or FDA has approved this medicine in every viagra 50 mg regencygrandenursing.com circumstance.
Addressing the question of what it means to responsibly exercise the rights of citizenship in America exposes a pale sense of freedom among the culturally elite. So what if a baker doesn’t want to put a plastic figure of two grooms or two brides on top of a wedding cake? A constitutionally-informed citizenry doesn’t need a member of the legislative, judicial, or executive branch of government to contradict what common sense and human decency clearly dictate. This is more the fare of the disenfranchised trying to backdoor a cultural agenda on an otherwise-disposed majority. It isn’t really about tolerance and sensitivity at all. It is simply a case of following the money trail to the hand that rocks the cradle of an ever-expanding government all too-often unduly influenced by the highest bidder.

How one views his or her role in a decreasingly free society has a direct bearing on how well Americans will be represented by our elected and un-elected officials in the near and long-term future. It is not enough to merely vote in officeholders. American citizens collectively and at times individually must take action within their spheres of influence regardless of outcome. The mere act of exercising the duties of citizenship expands American know-how and strengthens resolve when better outcomes are to be had. Noble efforts may be clumsy at first, but with time and effort will further cultivate intentionality and skillful engagement. As a retired combat veteran, I am not as concerned with the known enemy across the water as the disengaged citizenry on the home front. I just wish that there was as much passion for contemplating what it means to be a U.S. citizen as there is regarding “who” is entitled to become one.

Quick Analysis

Judge Merchan continues to deny justice to Donald Trump

In August of 2024, we discussed the US Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States. We described the three tiered system enunciated by Chief Justice Roberts to determine whether or not the actions taken by the President of the United States are entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution or not. The first tier are acts within the President’s constitutionally mandated authority which are subject to “absolute immunity.” The next are acts that may have “presumptive immunity,” and are subject to examination with evidence that rebuts the presumption of immunity. The third are acts which are unofficial, and which enjoy no immunity. In September, we also discussed the effect this decision should have on the New York County criminal case currently pending against President-elect Trump before Judge Juan Merchan. We cited to a CNN report, which described the evidence used against Donald Trump at the trial of that matter: “Trump’s lawyers pointed to testimony at trial – including from White House officials Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout – they argued should not have come before the jury…'[a]ll of Hicks’s testimony concerning events in 2018, when she was serving as the White House Communications Director, concerned official acts based on [Presidential] authority for which President Trump is entitled to absolute immunity,’ Trump’s attorneys argued. ‘[the Supreme Court’s ruling] specifically forbids prosecutors from offering ‘testimony’ from a President’s ‘advisers’ for the purpose of ‘probing the official act.’” Sure enough, as Chief Justice Roberts stated in the Presidential Immunity decision, “[a]llowing prosecutors to ask or suggest that the jury probe official acts for which the President is immune would thus raise a unique risk that the jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of the President’s policies and performance while in office. The prosaic tools on which the Government would have courts rely are an inadequate safeguard against the peculiar constitutional concerns implicated in the prosecution of a former President.” At the time, we stated that “Judge Merchan allowed testimony regarding Donald Trump’s official acts as President, acts which enjoy absolute immunity and which cannot be used against him, or even be entered into evidence in a criminal trial, a situation which could have been avoided had Judge Merchan delayed the trial until he’d received the guidance of the US Supreme Court.” Nonetheless, we predicted that Judge Merchan “will find a way to justify his actions once again, and let stand the unlawful conviction of former President Donald Trump.” You know how much we hate to say we were right…but…we were right. “This Court…finds that the evidence related to the [President-elect’s] claims relate entirely to unofficial conduct and thus, receive no immunity protections,” Judge Merchan wrote in his December 16, 2024 decision. “Further, even if this Court were to deem all of the contested evidence…as official conduct falling within the outer perimeter of Defendant’s Presidential authority, it would still find that the People’s use of these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch, a conclusion amply supported by non-motive-related evidence.” In so ruling, the Court denied Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss his New York County conviction. Let us examine these findings, in light of the evidence admitted at the President-elect’s trial, and then compare that evidence to the acts granted absolute immunity by the US Supreme Court. In his decision, Judge Merchan discusses the testimony of Hope Hicks, who served as the Communications Director for the Trump White House. “Defendant argues that in her roles at the White House, any communications between Ms. Hicks and Defendant must receive absolute immunity…as Defendant’s ability to speak freely to Ms. Hicks was a core function of the Executive. According to Defendant, because Ms. Hicks wielded executive power on his behalf, authority that exists pursuant to Article II of the Constitution, any communications [President Trump] had with [Hicks] are subject to absolute immunity,” the Court wrote. Judge Merchan also noted that “[t]he People argue that the communications Defendant had with Ms. Hicks…constitute unofficial acts not entitled to any level of immunity.” In his inevitable agreement with the arguments presented by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s office, Judge Merchan wrote “Defendant’s argument that any communication he had with Ms. Hicks is subject to absolute immunity by virtue of the position she held in the White House is mistaken…the President himself may speak in his unofficial capacity as a candidate or party leader, and certainly he can do so in his private capacity as well. Any argument that private conduct transforms into official conduct by communicating about the same to an individual with a particular title is without merit.” Thus, it is Judge Merchan’s position that the conversations Donald Trump had with his Communications Director are not entitled to immunity, even though those discussions were held at the White House, while Donald Trump was serving as President of the United States, merely because those discussions were not related to official Executive Branch activities. Sounds possibly reasonable – until you examine the Presidential Immunity decision more closely. In September, we wrote that “the statement made by Chief Justice Roberts in his majority opinion in the Presidential Immunity case [is significant]; ‘Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution…[t]estimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.’” This statement by Chief Justice Roberts points to a blanket immunity for ANY discussions had between the President and his advisors, regardless of the nature of those communications. Further, we noted that the Supreme Court issued the following warning: “[t]he government…contends that a jury could ‘consider’ evidence concerning the President’s official acts ‘for limited and specified purposes,’ and that such evidence would ‘be admissible.’” In rejecting that argument, Chief Justice Roberts states “[t]hat proposal threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized. It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly – invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution […]