A Declaratory Judgment Action In a Court of Law Is the Best Chance that We Have to Learn the Truth About the 2020 Presidential Election and the Capitol Invasion

 

A Declaratory Judgment Action In a Court of Law Is the Best Chance that We Have to Learn the Truth About the 2020 Presidential Election and the Capitol Invasion

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

February 8, 2021

 

It looks like I was correct when I warned about Republicans turning on former President Donald J. Trump. See my previous articles with comments, “President Trump Must Immediately File A Declaratory Judgment Action to Vindicate Himself and Put an End to the Election Controversy and New Impeachment” (Jan. 11, 2021), “President Trump Needs to Make His Impeachment Defense First In Court Before Making It In the Senate” (Jan. 17, 2021), and “Former President Donald J. Trump Should File a Declaratory Judgment Action and Not a Quo Warranto Action” (Jan. 26, 2021).  

We have this just before Trump's Senate impeachment trial is set to begin.  "Breaking With G.O.P., Top Conservative Lawyer Says Trump Can Stand Trial.”  Conservative Attorney Charles J. Cooper is the writer.  The mainstream media is in love with Mr. Cooper, given that he has represented and continues to represent various political foes of Trump and now argues that under the Constitution’s impeachment clause the House has the authority to charge and the Senate to convict a former president for his conduct occurring while he was in office, even though at the time of the Senate trial he is no longer in office. The simple reason for that is, as I have also stated, the Congress may still want to, in addition to removing such an offender from his current office, also ban him from future political office.  I have warned that this will be the winning argument, but the Republicans are bent on trying to get Trump's case dismissed without ever reaching the merits of the election irregularities and whether Trump caused the Capitol invasion.

At this time, Trump faces four scenarios, with only the fourth providing the public with the truth about the 2020 presidential election and the Capitol invasion that followed and Trump clearing himself from any wrongdoing. 

First, without Trump preparing and presenting a defense on the merits, Trump's Republican political enemies will win. I have explained that they hope to achieve a procedural dismissal so that the question of the 2020 presidential election does not have to be laid open before the Senate of the United States, which voted to certify that election on January 6, 2021. Hence, if Trump’s detractors win on procedural grounds, the election issue will not be revisited, and Trump will not have cleared his name.

Second, if the Senate denies Trump's motion to dismiss on procedural grounds and moves forward with the merits, Trump will need to be prepared to defend himself. At this time, it is not clear what Trump will present as his defense during the trial. The media is already reporting that there probably will not be any witnesses at the trial which means that it is not possible that Trump would be able to present all the facts related to the 2020 presidential election and his alleged role in the Capitol invasion.  It would also be a farce for Trump to testify at the trial without presenting any other evidence. If Trump’s detractors lose on procedural grounds, it is likely that 17 Senators, for the sake of their future political careers, will not join the impeaching Democrats which gives Trump only a veneer of victory, for Trump, while not being banned from future political office, will still not have cleared his name. The merits trial will be filled with propaganda imagery of the invasion which will be the Democrats' unspoken let alone proof that Trump caused what the viewers can see on the big media screens.  That show trial will create a biased record that will follow Trump and his supporters for life.

Third, if 17 Republicans do vote to convict, Trump will not have cleared his name and will most probably be forever barred from future office.   

Fourth, Trump has chosen at his peril the politically charged Senate rather than a court of law in which I have recommended he should file a declaratory judgment action, request a stay of the Senate trial, and where he has a better chance that his due process rights would be respected. The pending election lawsuits to be heard in the U.S. Supreme Court only addresses the actual election.  They do not involve the Capitol invasion and the critical question of whether Trump legally caused that invasion.   It is only in a declaratory judgment action filed in a court of law--where Trump (assuming he does not fear being deposed and called as a witness) would have discovery, subpoena powers, the ability to call witnesses, and the right to litigate both the integrity of the election in the contested states and whether he legally caused the Capitol invasion--that Trump stands any chance of creating a credible factual record of what happened in the 2020 presidential election and in the Capitol invasion. It is only in a court of law that Trump has any chance of proving to the American people and the world the truth of what happened in the 2020 election and in the Capitol invasion that followed.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
February 8, 2021
http://puzo1.blogspot.com

####

Copyright © 2021
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved      

Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen

In defining what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is, we do not seek to read into the Constitution that which was not intended and written there by the Framers. Despite popular belief, the Fourteenth Amendment does not convey the status of “natural born Citizen” in its text nor in its intent. Some add an implication to the actual wording of the Fourteenth Amendment by equating the amendment’s “citizen” to Article II’s “natural born Citizen.” But nowhere does the 14th Amendment confer “natural born citizen” status. The words simply do not appear there, but some would have us believe they are implied. But the wording of the Amendment is clear in showing that it confers citizenship only and nothing more.

The intent and purpose of the amendment was to provide equal citizenship to all Americans either born on U.S. soil or naturalized therein and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It does not grant “natural born Citizen” status. It only confers “citizen” status, as that is the exact word used by the Amendment itself and that is the same word that appears in Article I, II, III, and IV of the Constitution. It just conveys the status of “citizen,” and as we learned from how the Framers handled the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795, being a “citizen” does not necessarily mean that one is a “natural born Citizen.”

The Fourteenth Amendment only tells us who may become members of the community called the United States, i.e., those born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are U.S. citizens. The amendment was needed because under Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), slaves and their descendents, whether free or not, were not considered as being members of that community even though born on U.S. soil and unlike the American Indians subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But the amendment only allowed these slaves and their descendents to become a member of the U.S. community by making them U.S. citizens. Once those persons or anybody else (e.g. Wong Kim Ark) so became a member of the U.S. community (became a U.S. citizen by birth on U.S. soil or through naturalization), then that person could join with another U.S. citizen and procreate a child on U.S. soil who would then be an Article II "natural born Citizen."

Hence, during the Founding, the original citizens created the new Constitutional Republic. Through Article II’s grandfather clause, they were allowed to be President. Their posterity would be the "natural born Citizens" who would perpetuate the new nation and its values. These “natural born Citizens,” born after the adoption of the Constitution, would be the future Presidents.

Subsequently, a “natural born Citizen” was created by someone first becoming a member of the United States (a U.S. citizen) by birth on its soil to a mother and father who were U.S. citizens or if not so born then through naturalization, and then joining with another similarly created U.S. citizen to procreate a child on U.S. soil. The product of that union would be an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

After the Fourteenth Amendment, it became sufficient to be a citizen if one were merely born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. That U.S. citizen would then procreate with another similarly created U.S citizen and produce a “natural born Citizen.”

As we can see, becoming a U.S. citizen is only the first step in the process of creating a “natural born Citizen.” The second step is the two U.S citizens procreating a child on U.S. soil. It is these “natural born Citizens” who can someday be President or Vice President of the United States. Stated differently, a President must be a second generation American citizen by both U.S. citizen parents. A Senator or Representative can be a first generation American citizen by naturalization or birth. It is the extra generation carried by a President which assures the American people that he/she is born with attachment and allegiance only to the United States.

The issue of what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote “natural born Citizen” into Article II is surely ripe for the U.S. Supreme Court to determine. The issue is one of first impression and the Supreme Court needs to decide it. The national security and survival of the United States as conceived by the Founders are at stake. Because of the utter failure of our political and media institutions to give proper and honest attention to this issue, only the highest court in the land can now come to the aid of the Kerchner plaintiffs and We the People.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

America's True Form of Government

Here is a link to a very good educational video at YouTube.com about America's True Form of Government. At least we had it originally. It is now further under threat by the trampling of Article II of our Constitution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7M-7LkvcVw
Can we keep it?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

P.S. Please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####