Continuing to express my concerns in a meaningful way… This letter went out to the 11th Congressional District Representative Mark DeSaulnier and to my two Senators, Diane Feinstein and Kamala Harris. 

Dear Mr. DeSaulnier ,

I just learned about a congressional procedure that’s been called “strip and insert”, where a bill that is focused on one issue is passed through one or more points of approval, such as a vote in the House or Senate and then the issue of focus is stripped out and replaced with an entirely different issue without changing the approval status of the bill. In the Indiana Assembly this is happening to HR1214, which was designed to allow for the sale and possession of CBD oil for medicinal use and having been approved by both chambers the references to CBD oil is being “stripped” out while new references to guns are being inserted.

The excuse lawmakers have is that another bill, SB52 is already well on it’s way to legalizing the sale and possession of CBD oil, making HR1214 a redundant effort. The problem that concerns me is that once HR1214, was determined to be unnecessary to the cause of legalizing CBD oil, it wasn’t destroyed. Instead, the bill in it’s current state of approval was kept around so that other lawmakers can pick it up and make it about something else, such as allowing the sale and possession of guns.

I’m not so concerned about CBD oil or guns in Indiana… HB1214 is just an example. My concern is that lawmakers are allowed to use this process to bypass due-process by using a bill that was already approved for something else, thereby allowing them to effectively pass laws without representation.

Please consider a new law that will prohibit this decidedly undemocratic practice. I believe the American people are asking for more honest and upfront representation and to that end there seems little choice but to stop these games.
Thank you,

Nigel Deans
Concord, CA.

I first learned about Indiana’s HR1214 through this article by Bob Segall for WTHR.

Recently, Jeff Sessions addressed the California Peace Officers’ Assn. in Sacramento with an announcement that he is going to sue the State of California over the sanctuary laws. During his speech he declared that California doesn’t have a right to refuse his orders because “Federal law is the supreme law of the land.”

Now, I’m sure the little weasel is hoping people will just accept what he said without a challenge, but I’m not one of those people. 😉

What we have here is a form of deception based on a supporting argument that is true by itself but has no relevance whatsoever to the the point being made.

Yes, there is indeed a “Supremacy Clause” in the Constitution… Article VI, Clause 2 says…

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;

Clearly, this confirms that federal law *IS* the “Supreme Law of the Land”. But the Constitution is also very clear about who has the power to MAKE these supreme federal laws… Article I gives that power to Congress, not the President. Powers delegated to the President are listed in Article II and do not include ANY legislative power. According to the Constitution, Trump and Sessions are supposed to be enforcing the federal laws that come from Congress, not their own executive orders. BTW, this is precisely what separates a constitutional republic from a dictatorship.

So, the real question is… does the sanctuary provided by California actually violate any federal laws legislated by Congress? From what I can tell, there isn’t any and Sessions of course neglects to point out any such specifics, relying instead on broad-brush symbolism where deception won’t be so obvious. It appears that the only rules that sanctuary in California is violating are the orders and policies of the Trump administration, NOT federal laws.

And as is often the case on the heels of deception, irrational but dramatic symbolism draws the curtains as Sessions says “I would invite any doubters to Gettysburg, and to the graves of John C. Calhoun and Abraham Lincoln.”

Right. Because their graves will explain how the Executive Branch can overrule a state and not be unconstitutional. If his simple-minded point is to say the Civil War confirms the federal government overrules the state government, I invite him to read the 10th Amendment.