tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post8163491794305970289..comments2024-03-02T14:24:03.076-05:00Comments on Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: Former President Donald J. Trump Should File a Declaratory Judgment Action and Not a Quo Warranto ActionMario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-64310911740152244972021-02-07T15:44:22.758-05:002021-02-07T15:44:22.758-05:00“A simply terrible idea,” added Sen. Chris Coons (...“A simply terrible idea,” added Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.). “He will perjure himself, so he’s the one at risk. But I cannot tell you how much I have enjoyed my first full Trump free week of the last five years.”<br /><br />And he said this just before he is going to sit as a juror in former President Trump's impeachment trial in the Senate. <br /><br />I just wonder how such people ever made it to the U.S. Senate. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-79096226550929573512021-02-07T14:26:10.932-05:002021-02-07T14:26:10.932-05:00Hi Mario,
Dittos, again, to your first sentence i...Hi Mario,<br /><br />Dittos, again, to your first sentence in the first paragraph on this post (February 4, 2021 at 9:55 AM): <br /><b>"There is no democracy if there is no honesty in our elections"</b>, and, because <b>“the law disappeared”</b>, when there is <b>“no honesty”</b> on the streets because the <b>“law”</b> has been instructed to <b>“stand down”</b> and let the <b>foot soldiers</b> pillage and terrorize.<br /><br />From Revolver.news<br /><br /><b>The “Canceling” of New York Times Reporter Donald McNeil Proves White Liberals Are The Useful Idiots of “Woke Culture”</b> – February 6, 2021<br /><br />>> https://www.revolver.news/2021/02/the-canceling-of-new-york-times-reporter-donald-mcneil-proves-white-liberals-are-the-useful-idiots-of-woke-culture/ <br /><br />Here are 3 examples from current events in America of how <b>“the law disappeared”</b> when the <b>“law”</b> did nothing to stop what the author of the article calls the <b>“modern left”</b> and also <b>“new left”</b>, but really should be identified as <b>Antifa</b> (if you’re not a <b>communist</b> you’re a <b>fascist</b> – that’s whey they are <b>antifascist</b>) and <b>Black Lives Matter</b> (self-identified as “trained marxists”) <b>footsoldiers of the marxist revolution</b> when they were burning businesses, looting stores, destroying monuments and statues in 2020 and now in 2021.<br /><br />Paragraph # 8<br /><br />“Forgiveness is a wholly alien concept for the modern left. The new left believes in power, and ruthlessly exercising it against its chosen enemies. <br /><br />“That’s why <b>Kyle Rittenhouse</b> faces life in prison for defending himself from Antifa attackers. <br /><br />“That’s why a mob stormed onto the <b>McCloskey’s</b> lawn, yet it’s the McCloskeys who face time in prison for nonviolently protecting themselves. <br /><br />“It’s why the left takes gleeful joy in <b>destroying</b> monuments and defacing graves, frenzied in the knowledge that they can destroy <b>with impunity</b>”.<br /><br />Artajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-17819768907894277312021-02-06T15:36:18.296-05:002021-02-06T15:36:18.296-05:00Hi Mario,
Correction for clarity...
Incorrect:
...Hi Mario,<br /><br />Correction for clarity...<br /><br />Incorrect: <br />"In the first impeachment <b>"trial"</b> farce, the Schiff <b>"big lie"</b> of <b>"evidence"</b> prevailed until Special Counsel Muller..."<br /><br />Correct: <br />In the first impeachment <b>“trial”</b> farce, the Schiff <b>“big lie”</b> of <b>“evidence”</b> prevailed until the U. S. Senate, representing the <b>“rule of law”</b> as expected, issued its <b>"NOT guilty"</b> verdict and revealed that there was absolutely no <b>“evidence”</b> (in agreement with Special Counsel Muller). Period.<br /><br />That correction is more in line with the last two paragraphs in my original comment here on February 5, 2021 at 12:30 AM .<br /><br />Art<br />http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.comajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-8248188336249207022021-02-05T00:30:36.660-05:002021-02-05T00:30:36.660-05:00Hi Mario,
Dittos to your first sentence in the fi...Hi Mario,<br /><br />Dittos to your first sentence in the first paragraph (February 4, 2021 at 9:55 AM): <br /><b>"There is no democracy if there is no honesty in our elections"</b>.<br /><br />Here is the quote from <b>marlene</b> (January 7, 2021 at 5:00 AM) in which she related some dialogue from a TV movie about how the decline of the law during the rise of Hitler and the nazis influenced a young lawyer.<br /><br />This is the url – http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2020/12/it-is-sufficient-if-only-one-house-of.html <br /><br />"1. The Rule of Law is being erased in our Land<br /><br />"Several years ago, I saw a movie on TV. The setting was Berlin, Germany just after WWII at the time the Soviets were laying roles of barbed wire on the ground to mark the border between East and West Berlin. <br /><br />"The main characters were a young American woman and a young German man. <br /><br />"He had gotten a law degree while Hitler was taking over Germany; but he never practiced law. <br /><br />"She asked him why and he said, <b>“The Law disappeared”</b>.<br /><br />“And that’s what’s going on in our Country: <br /><br />"<b>The Law</b> – as the standard which those in government must obey – has <b>disappeared</b> and is being replaced by the age-old system where those with the power do what they want, and the cowards go along with it".<br /><br />Mario, in your last sentence you wrote:<br /><br />“By continuing to dispute the election in the contested states as part of his defense to the impeachment charge that he told a <b>“big lie”</b> about the election being stolen from him (his other defense is that he did not legally cause the Capitol invasion), Trump will not only effectively defend himself from the impeachment charge of inciting insurrection, but also our constitutional republic, the Constitution, and the <b>rule of law</b>”.<br /><br />In the first impeachment “trial” farce, the Schiff <b>“big lie”</b> of <b>“evidence”</b> prevailed until Special Counsel Muller, representing the <b>“rule of law”</b>, revealed that there was absolutely no <b>“evidence”</b>. Period.<br /><br />In the Senate <b>“trial”</b> where the Schiff way of expressing the <b>“big lie”</b> of <b>“evidence”</b> will be used to confuse the honest citizens listening to the <b>“trial”</b>, will the Senators accept the <b>“big truth”</b> when it is expressed by the lawyers for Trump?<br /><br />Well, we’re going to find out if the <b>rule of law</b> will prevail in the U. S. Senate, or we’re going to find out, again, that <b>“the law disappeared”</b> for the third time as it did twice before on November 3 and 4, 2020 and on January 6 and 7, 2021.<br /><br />Art<br />http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.comajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-64721581840674744072021-02-04T09:55:34.687-05:002021-02-04T09:55:34.687-05:00There is no democracy if there is no honesty in ou...There is no democracy if there is no honesty in our elections. There are still many unanswered questions regarding the elections in the contested states, notwithstanding many court dismissals of election contest lawsuits that did not reach the merits of the challenges.<br /><br />The Democrats have chosen to impeach Trump in connection with the 2020 presidential election. That opens the door for Trump to revisit the integrity of the elections in the contested states and introduce evidence to support his allegations that we did not have fair and honest presidential elections there. Hence, Trump now has an opportunity to continue the debate about election integrity on a grand national stage. By continuing to dispute the election in the contested states as part of his defense to the impeachment charge that he told a “big lie” about the election being stolen from him (his other defense is that he did not legally cause the Capitol invasion), Trump will not only effectively defend himself from the impeachment charge of inciting insurrection, but also our constitutional republic, the Constitution, and the rule of law. <br /><br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-64021434663060284142021-02-03T14:30:13.062-05:002021-02-03T14:30:13.062-05:00Of course, some Republican Senators as much as the...Of course, some Republican Senators as much as the Democrat Senators do not want Trump to raise the issue of the election irregularities in this Senate impeachment trial. After all, they voted to certify the result of the election and they want to avoid embarrassment. The Republican Senators want Trump to just stay quiet and make the impeachment go away on procedural grounds without anyone ever knowing whether Trump had any basis for making his statements that the elections in the contested states were not conducted properly. The problem with that strategy is that the Democrats and some Republican Senators are coming after Trump with a full vengeance to convict him and to bar him from ever holding office again. Trump must make up his mind whether he is going to stick up for himself or sacrifice himself for the interest of Republican Senators which in the latter case does not provide him with any defense against his political enemies in the Senate. <br /><br />Some Republican Senators in the Senate are willing to throw Trump under the bus which will occur if Trump does not address the election irregularities issue in the Senate. If Trump wins on the procedural issue (which I doubt he will), then these Republican Senators win because the election issue was avoided, but Trump was not able to address the merits and clear his name. If Trump loses on the procedural issue, then the trial goes forward with Trump not addressing the election issue. Without any real defense having been mounted, Trump can be convicted on his “false” claims about the election and for “causing” the “insurrection,” and barred from future office, all of which rids these Republican Senators of Trump. In both scenarios, these Republican Senators win but Trump loses. <br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-14754850313207554472021-02-03T12:03:38.752-05:002021-02-03T12:03:38.752-05:00Hi Mario,
This morning, February 3, 2021, in the ...Hi Mario,<br /><br />This morning, February 3, 2021, in the first half hour on Steve Bannon’s War Room ( https://pandemic.warroom.org ) on America’s Voice News TV, Florida Representative Matt Gates said that since sitting members of the House can't represent President Trump in the Senate "trial", he would step down from his House seat to represent DJT if he was asked. He said that he never lost a case at trial, and representing DJT would not be his first loss.<br /><br />Gates agreed with Steve Bannon that Senator Rand Paul's move which identified the 45 Republican Senators who would NOT vote to convict means that the "trial" is a farce going nowhere, so why not remove the two new lawyers who don't seem to have the larger view of how to appeal to the emotions of the people of America and NOT only the Senators at the “trial”. So they agreed, why not have Gates represent DJT in the "trial" for the history books by making an emotional appeal in the Senate to the greater audience, the people of America who voted who agree that election fraud should be on “trial”, not just an unconstitutional scheme by the “insurrectionist” Democrats and Republicans.<br /><br />Here is Steve Bannon’s news site which looks like the Drudge site – https://bannonswarroom.com .<br /><br />Art<br />http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.comajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-39424033826600770862021-02-03T09:47:48.000-05:002021-02-03T09:47:48.000-05:00CNN reports:
Hundreds of congressional staffers...CNN reports: <br /> <br />Hundreds of congressional staffers wrote an open letter to senators urging them to consider the trauma aides experienced during the deadly insurrection at the US Capitol and to convict former President Donald Trump "for our sake, and the sake of the country."<br /><br />https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/03/politics/congressional-staffers-impeachment-letter/index.html <br /><br />Just imagine hundreds of biased persons (the writers are mostly Democrats) writing letters to a jury in a court trial, telling them of the trauma they suffered and that they should convict the defendant. <br /><br />The Senate trial just keeps on getting better. This is exactly why I keep saying that Trump needs to take his case to a court of law and not to the circus Senate. <br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-38016671524250263972021-02-03T00:00:55.742-05:002021-02-03T00:00:55.742-05:00The Democrats realize that by impeaching Trump, th...The Democrats realize that by impeaching Trump, they have opened the election irregularities door. But they want it both ways, they want to impeach and convict Trump and at the same time they want him to shut his mouth about the integrity of the election. Now that takes a lot of gall. But why should the Republicans cower to such bullying?<br /><br />There are many persons around Trump trying to convince him to take the Democrats’ advice and not mention the election irregularities issue in his Senate trial. We should ask ourselves why? I am glad to see that Trump’s lawyers, Bruce L. Castor, Jr. and David Schoen, at least included in their Answer to the Article of Impeachment filed today that Trump denies that his statements about the election irregularities were false. By alleging that “[i]nsufficient evidence exists upon which a reasonable jurist could conclude that the 45th President’s statements were accurate or not,” they deny that Trump’s statements about the election were false. Hence, Trump’s lawyers have challenged the Democrat Senators to produce the evidence that the election was not tainted and thereby have placed the burden of proof on the Senate to prove that Trump’s election statements were false. The problem with such a strategy is that as I learned in high school debate class, he who asserts must prove. It was Trump who said that the elections in the contested states are not valid. Hence, the burden is on him to show that he was correct.<br /><br />Additionally, the trial is taking place in the Senate and not in a court of law. That means that the circus will be in the Senate, not in a court. The problem will be that the circus will not be for Trump’s entertainment, but rather for that of his political enemies. That also means that the Democrat Senators and those Republicans who will join them will do and say anything they want without any way to check them. They are emboldened because they have the mainstream media and some establishment elements behind them. They can do no wrong and are not accountable to anyone. They will pile the rhetoric on and in the end, say that they have shown that Trump’s statements about the election were false. They will all pat each other on the back in the mainstream media and no one will be able to stop them.<br /><br />That is why I still insist that Trump must take his case to a federal district court in a declaratory judgment action before he goes forward with his trial in the Senate. There, with due process of law to protect him, Trump would be able to meaningfully address the issue of the election irregularities and whether he legally caused the Capitol invasion.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-77776594856616656452021-02-02T12:02:50.364-05:002021-02-02T12:02:50.364-05:00It would be a grave error for Trump not to address...It would be a grave error for Trump not to address during his Senate impeachment trial the issue of whether he told the American people a “big lie” regarding the election in the contested states. The Democrat Senators are going to make his Senate trial all about that, with the addition of inflammatory videos of the actual invasion which they will say resulted in the death of several people. That will be their “trial.” They are going to argue that Trump violated the “public trust” and damaged our international image and democracy and pressure the Republican Senators to vote to impeach on that issue alone. The question of whether Trump legally caused the invasion of the Capital will get lost in that rhetoric and emotionally charged videos. That is evident from how the Democrats keep blaming Trump for the Capital invasion even though there is evidence that has come out as documented by the FBI that rebellious forces planned the Capitol invasion days before Trump gave his speech on January 6, 2021.<br /><br />That is why it will be a grave mistake for Trump’s legal team to just focus on the question of whether the impeachment is constitutional. If the Senate does not dismiss on that issue and Trump does not address the election issue, he will be fried.<br /><br />In the Senate, the Democrat Senators are going to roll right over him with plenty of rhetoric on the election issue, with Trump not having had a chance to present his evidence of election irregularities. There even exists the chance that the Senate will not allow for any witnesses to testify during the impeachment trial, which to me sounds like a set up job designed to make Trump lose. How is Trump supposed to address the election issue without any witness testimony? As I have said in my previous articles on this blog, http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2021/01/former-president-donald-j-trump-should.html , Trump needs to file a declaratory judgment action in the federal district court before his Senate trial starts and ask for a stay of that trial (historically there are examples of Senate impeachment trials lasting for months). It is only there that he will be able to get due process of law, which includes full discovery, subpoena powers, and the ability to call witnesses, and to thereby get a fair trial on the issues of the election irregularities and whether he legally caused the Capitol invasion.<br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-9227085628807149202021-02-01T22:42:31.881-05:002021-02-01T22:42:31.881-05:00Another reason why Trump needs to file a declarato...Another reason why Trump needs to file a declaratory judgment action in federal district court prior to his Senate trial is to take out of the hands of the Senate the two questions: (1) did Trump tell a “big lie” about the elections in the contested states, and (2) did Trump legally cause the invasion of the Capitol. If he prevails on those issues in court, the court judgment would be binding on the Senate. That means that the Senate would not have to decide those issues. That would free Republican Senators from having to vote on those issues, matters from which they may want to stay away given the current cancel culture climate. Hence, Trump’s successful court action would be a win for both Trump and the Republican Senators. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-15233626125975247172021-02-01T15:26:30.744-05:002021-02-01T15:26:30.744-05:00Mario, hi. Yes.
Dittos to "contractor"....Mario, hi. Yes.<br /><br />Dittos to <b>"contractor"</b>. DJT contracts with others who will help him build something of value. In this case, to build a be good--be better--ah, <b>"BE BEST"</b> America than has ever existed before. <br /><br />In a sense the U. S. Constitution is for <b>"dreamers"</b> who want an individualistic FREE America where free people are free to be unequal with hard work and free to accumulate private property, not a <b>collectivist—socialist—communist</b> America where people are forced <b>to submit--to unite--to conform</b> to a <b>dictator-in-chief</b> with excessive executive orders and very excessive executive actions in the first 12 days as a <b>“Philip Dru, Administrator”</b>, and with the oligarch comrades in control of commune America.<br /><br />PS. if, Reality Check (see your comment on January 31, 2021 at 5:28 PM) and others who do not like the Philip Dru, Administrator appellation being applied to the President they believe is an honest man, they are either ignorant of history or they do know the history of America but the DON’T CARE about the U. S. Constitution.<br /><br />Edward Mandell House, author © 1912. Download the pdf here.<br />https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/House_Philip_Dru__Administrator.pdf <br /><br />Artajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-63176721401824586622021-02-01T13:06:32.325-05:002021-02-01T13:06:32.325-05:00Art,
Trump is a contractor. He does not just dr...Art, <br /><br />Trump is a contractor. He does not just dream about the Constitution. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-36644529673561349772021-02-01T12:55:47.210-05:002021-02-01T12:55:47.210-05:00Hi Mario,
Dittos. “Trump is being pressured both ...Hi Mario,<br /><br />Dittos. <i>“Trump is being pressured both in the Senate and in various legal circles to keep out of the Senate trial the <b>election issue”</b></i>. The “election issue” is the LAW that the Democratic and Republican <b>“political insurgents”</b> do NOT want to talk about because they DON’T CARE what Article II Section 1 clause 2 says. They DON’T CARE what the law is because to them <b>"the law disappeared"</b> on November 3, 2020 and the disappearance was affirmed on January 6, 2021 and the day that the House impeached then President Trump with a warp speed impeachment scam. <br /><br />That is the obvious example that the <b>“insurgents”</b> DON’T CARE about truth and honor. The <b>“DON’T CARE”</b> mob are the true <b>“insurgents”</b>, not former President Trump and the patriotic <b>“maganificent”</b> Trump supporters. So, that is why I throw the <b>“insurgent”</b> word back at Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi. She is the <b>“insurgent in chief”</b> of the “DON’T CARE” mob.<br /><br />Dittos. <i>"Only time will tell us what is really going on"</i>. And time will also tell us if <b>"the law disappeared"</b> (as <b>marlene</b> quoted on January 7, 2021 at 5:00 in the third paragraph <b>"the law disappeared"</b>).<br /><br />Art<br />http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.comajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-45263698348433961012021-02-01T09:45:23.604-05:002021-02-01T09:45:23.604-05:00Former President Trump and all of his supporters s...Former President Trump and all of his supporters should welcome a declaratory judgment action in federal court in which Trump could present all his evidence of election irregularities and demonstrate that he did not legally cause the Capitol invasion. In such a procedure, Trump would be free to argue the issues he wants, have full discovery and subpoena powers, present all his admissible evidence, and call whatever witness he desires. In the politically charged Senate, he will not have the same due process rights. In the federal court action, not only Trump but all his supporters would be vindicated. <br /><br />Trump is being pressured both in the Senate and in various legal circles to keep out of the Senate trial the election issue. He is being told to pursue only the constitutional issue which if successful would avoid ever getting to the merits. By analogy, it would be like a court dismissing a case for lack of standing which allows it to avoid without a public trial deciding the merits of the matter. I wonder why Trump is being so pressured. Is it that Trump simply does not have the evidence of election irregularities or is it that presenting such evidence will be a great embarrassment to our nation and to so many of today's legal, political, and media institutions and personalities? Only time will tell us what is really going on. <br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-79537904901748888632021-02-01T00:07:23.510-05:002021-02-01T00:07:23.510-05:00Hi Mario,
Dittos to these two sentences in your p...Hi Mario,<br /><br />Dittos to these two sentences in your post on January 31, 2021 at 12:31 AM.<br /><br />Paragraph 1, sentence 1. "It is <b>good to see</b> Trump <b>stand up</b> for what makes perfect and simple <b>sense</b>".<br /><br />Paragraph 4, sentence 2. "Hence, Trump is correct that he needs to show that his position on the election in the contested states was <b>not a “big lie”</b> and that his speech before and after January 6, 2021 was <b>not the legal cause</b> of the invasion of the Capitol".<br /><br />After I heard that President Trump had let 2 and then 5 of his defense lawyer go by mutual agreement for the reason that you stated in the post, I thought to myself that it seems that he is back in <b>"gut feeling"</b> mode, which is a very good sign. As he said in rally speeches, he didn't need to pay big bucks to pollsters to find out what he should think and say to appeal to voters, white, black, hispanic, etc. As it turned out, he spoke what he thought in his heart and the people responded <b>“magafically”</b>. Psalms 51:10 applies, “Create in me a clean heart O God, and renew a right spirit within me”. He spoke what he thought from his heart.<br /><br />So, it looks like President Trump may be going for the big K.O. of the political Democratic and Republican "insurgents" who DON'T CARE about truth and honor, and he’s going for a full faceted election fraud sword thrust and at the same time defending the people who heard him speak on January 6, 2021.<br /><br />Artajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-15017655902604736872021-01-31T17:28:04.771-05:002021-01-31T17:28:04.771-05:00It's hilarious to see the pompous oaf Reality ...It's hilarious to see the pompous oaf Reality Check posting comments on Twitter about my writings here. He has no courage to post them here because he knows that as I have always done, I will knock his snotty arrogance down several notches. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-37700482192268224872021-01-31T12:39:18.470-05:002021-01-31T12:39:18.470-05:00Art,
Here is a short comment on whether Senator T...Art,<br /><br />Here is a short comment on whether Senator Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen.<br /><br />Rafael Edward Cruz (“Ted Cruz”), was born on December 22, 1970 at the Foothills Medical Centre, Calgary, Canada, to a Cuban citizen father and U.S. citizen mother.<br /><br />When Thomas Jefferson wrote his letter of November 14, 1778 to John Jay, there was no law (statutory or common law) that provided that Cruz, born in Canada to a Cuban father and U.S. mother, was a “native, or natural-born citizen” as Vattel defined those words. Hence, in Jefferson’s eyes Cruz would have been an “alien.”<br /><br />The First Congress passed the nation’s first naturalization act in 1790. Thereunder, if Cruz’s father would have naturalized after Cruz’s birth and during his minority and if dwelling in the United States, Cruz would have become a “citizen” of the United States after his birth. Hence, at that point, Jefferson would have called him a “citizen[] alien-born.” If Cruz’s father did not naturalize during Cruz’s minority, Cruz would have had to file his own naturalization petition upon reaching the age of majority and have it approved. Under that scenario, he still would have been a “citizen[] alien-born.”<br /><br />It was not until May 24, 1934, that someone born under Cruz’s birth circumstances was accepted by the nation as a “citizen” of the United States “at birth” (not to be confused and confounded with an Article II “natural born citizen”). Prior to that time, Congress's naturalization Acts did not permit a child born out of the U.S. to a U.S. citizen mother and an alien father to acquire U.S. citizenship at birth. Starting on that date, children born out of the U.S. to U.S. citizen mothers and alien fathers, satisfying all conditions precedent and subsequent, were adopted under the naturalization Acts of Congress as “citizens” of the United States at birth and have remained so.<br /><br />Cruz relies upon section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 as support that he is a natural born citizen. First, that statute did not nor could it amend Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 (the natural born citizen clause). Second, that statute plainly says in its text that persons who meet its requirements are “citizens” of the United States. It does not say that they are “natural born citizens” of the United States.<br /><br />Cruz only in 2014 renounced his Canadian citizenship with which he was born and which according to those who argue that he is a natural born citizen would also have made him a natural born citizen of Canada.<br /><br />Finally, you got to love this one: "Natural Born Citizenship Clause. The clause of the U.S. Constitution barring persons not born in the United States from the presidency." Black's Law Dictionary, Eighth edition (1999).<br /><br />All this and much more leads to the inescapable conclusion that Senator Ted Cruz is not an Article II natural born citizen.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-67236034774891498852021-01-31T00:31:58.408-05:002021-01-31T00:31:58.408-05:00CNN, in an article entitled, “First on CNN: Five o...CNN, in an article entitled, “First on CNN: Five of Trump's impeachment defense attorneys leave team less than two weeks before trial, reports that five attorneys have left Trump’s impeachment defense team." https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/30/politics/butch-bowers-deborah-barbier-trump-impeachment-team/index.html. The article states, among other things: <br /> <br />A person familiar with the departures told CNN that Trump wanted the attorneys to argue there was mass election fraud and that the election was stolen from him rather than focus on the legality of convicting a president after he's left office. Trump was not receptive to the discussions about how they should proceed in that regard.<br /><br />It is good to see Trump stand up for what makes perfect and simple sense. In my opinion, it would be a grave error for his defense team to focus Trump’s entire defense on the issue of whether the impeachment itself is constitutional. First, granting for sake of argument that the Senate even had any role in deciding that jurisdictional issue, that issue has already been decided. There is no more jurisdiction in the Senate to continue arguing that issue, for the Senate’s job now is to decide the merits, i.e., convict or acquit on the evidence. Additionally, there are plenty of good arguments on both sides of this issue. The Trump side focuses on limiting the meaning of the words of the Constitution’s impeachment clause. They argue that the noun “The President” no longer applies once “The President” is no longer in office. They add that if Congress could impeach and try Trump after he has left office then it could impeach and try private citizens. But the House impeached Trump while he was president for his alleged conduct that occurred while he was president and now the Senate must try him on that conduct, although now that he is a private citizen. Hence, Congress is not impeaching and trying just a private citizen. Those who support impeaching and trying Trump also present textual (the need for disqualification from office in the future) and many other sound policy arguments on why the impeachment clause should not be read so narrowly. Notwithstanding that 45 Republican Senators voted to dismiss the impeachment trial (causing many to speculate that only 5 Republicans will vote with the Democrat Senators rather than the 17 needed), in the end, I believe that due to political pressure the Republican Senators when voting on the merits will not be wed to how they voted on the procedural motion to dismiss. And that is the risk that Trump faces in taking his case to the Senate rather than to the court. <br /> <br />With no dismissal, Trump would be totally out of luck if that were his only defense. Hence, Trump is correct that he needs to show that his position on the election in the contested states was not a “big lie” and that his speech before and after January 6, 2021 was not the legal cause of the invasion of the Capitol. Again, I have written three articles in which I explain why Trump should present his evidence on these issues in a declaratory judgment action filed against the House, Senate, and whole Congress in federal district court before making his defense in the Senate. Only a federal court will protect his due process rights, not a politically charged and driven Senate. Only time will tell how he will proceed and then it will all be history. <br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-85828880808584876802021-01-30T22:37:26.324-05:002021-01-30T22:37:26.324-05:00In 2 of 3, I said
Yes, provided that “native born...In 2 of 3, I said<br /><br />Yes, provided that “native born citizen” was used to mean a “native” as Vattel defined the word in Section 212. Note that Jefferson naming who should be named to consular positions does not make one mention of a “native born citizen” and he could not have, for no one available to fill those positions was a natural born citizen. I also explained in my article that “natural born citizen” is a term of art. Blackstone in his Commentaries said that terms of art "must be taken according to the acceptation of the learned in each art, trade, and science."<br /><br />It should say: <br /><br />Yes, provided that “native born citizen” was used to mean a “native” as Vattel defined the word in Section 212. Note that Jefferson listing who should be named to consular positions does not make one mention of a “natural born citizen” and he could not have, for no one available to fill those positions was a natural born citizen. I also explained in my article that “natural born citizen” is a term of art. Blackstone in his Commentaries said that terms of art "must be taken according to the acceptation of the learned in each art, trade, and science."Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-26529299792213132412021-01-30T21:49:24.534-05:002021-01-30T21:49:24.534-05:00Hi Mario,
Dittos to the last five words in the la...Hi Mario,<br /><br />Dittos to the last five words in the last sentence in the last paragraph in section 3, <b>"...parents who were its citizens"</b> (January 30, 2021 at 6:50 PM).<br /><br />A "natural born Citizen" is a child born to "...parents <b>[plural]</b> who were its citizens" BEFORE the children were born on the soil of which the parents were citizens. If Vattel had intended only one parent (as some people suggest that <b>“native”</b> and <b>“native citizen”</b> imply) on either the soil of the parents or on soil foreign to the parents, he most definitely would have so stated.<br /><br />Not only did John Jay agree with Vattel about married parents with the same citizenship, and birth of children on the soil of the married parents, Jay agreed that union by marriage of the singular citizenship parents AND the soil of their citizenship devolved ONLY <b>singular</b> citizenship on their child.<br /><br />What is the alternative? Well, dual citizenship, of course. <br /><br />However, Jay was not schizophrenic, vague, confused, and neither was (1758) (1797) Emer de Vattel or (1875) Minor V. Happersett Supreme Court Chief Justice Morrison Waite. ONLY <b>singular</b> citizenship was implied in Vattel’s use of “natives <b>“or”</b> natural born citizens” and in Waite’s use of “...natives, <b>“or”</b> natural-born citizens” in conjunction with “aliens <b>“or”</b> foreigners”.<br /><br />Mario, with respectful reference to your interlocutor, when, where, who is the erudite constitutional scholar who will engage you? Maybe you should write that book that I’ve asked you about twice before if you are going to write a book. <br /><br />Put your Natural Born Citizen blog into a book with an ISBN designation and you will most definitely stir up a hornets nest of <b>“erudite constitutional scholars”</b> who think that, for example, that my Texas federal Senator Ted Cruz was a 1790 Naturalization Act <b>“natural born citizen”</b> and so was eligible to be president and should have been elected instead of President Trump. You know to whom I’m referring since he’s still on national radio for 3 hours 5 days a week at 6 PM. And I really like the guy as a fellow patriot, but he is simply wrong about Ted Cruz being a “natural born Citizen” and eligible to be president.<br /><br />Art<br />http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.comajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-29780656897584972792021-01-30T18:50:57.839-05:002021-01-30T18:50:57.839-05:003 of 3
You said:
Mario wrote, “Native citizen wa...3 of 3<br /><br />You said:<br /><br />Mario wrote, “Native citizen was more inclusive, for it included persons who were born in the colonies and who became citizens through the Revolution and natural born citizens who were born in a state to citizen parents.“<br />We seem to agree that it is clear the Founders/Framers did not have the same definition of “natives” as Vattel.<br /><br />Response:<br /><br />First, the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) disagrees with you. There the Court said: “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” As you see, the Court equated “natives” with “natural-born citizen” exactly how Vattel did in Section 212 of The Law of Nations and the Court defined such “nomenclature” as “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.” Clearly, the Court neither relied upon nor referred to Blackstone’s definitions of “natives” or “natural-born subjects.” Furthermore, neither the Founders/Framers nor the U.S. Supreme Court ever used the clause “natural born citizen” in any way that contradicts how Vattel defined the clause in Section 212. See Minor and United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) (show that the Framers defined the clause the same as Vattel did).<br /><br />Second, that there are instances in which the Framers used “native” or “native citizen” to mean something other than how Vattel defined the “natives” does not prove that the Framers defined a natural born citizen differently than how Vattel defined one. Again, see Minor quoted above. As I have demonstrated, that is so for the simple reason that we must look to the context of each time a Founder or Framer used the word “native” or “native citizen” to determine what he meant by the term. From the underlying circumstances, we must examine whether he used the word in a more inclusive sense (like Jefferson, Washington, and Wilson did) because such use satisfied his current need or only in the sense of how Vattel defined the term (like Iredell probably did) which after the Constitution was ratified applied only to determining presidential eligibility.<br /><br />I do not think you have proven anything by trying to show how the Founders and Framers defined a “native” or “native citizen.” Article II uses “natural born citizen,” not native or native citizen. Even if analyzing the Founders’/Framers’ meaning of natives provides the natural born citizen smoking gun and if there are any doubts about how the Founders and Framers used “natives” or “native citizens” which doubts you contend favor your position, those doubts are removed by the Framers choosing the word of art “natural born citizen” in Article II, for that choice avoided any ambiguity presented by the word “native” or “native citizen.” Again, Minor also instructs how the Framers defined both “natives, or natural-born citizens” which is exactly how Vattel did, i.e., all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-35736589883327345382021-01-30T18:50:13.342-05:002021-01-30T18:50:13.342-05:002 of 3
You said:
You said back in 2009, “During ...2 of 3<br /><br />You said:<br /><br />You said back in 2009, “During the founding, "natural born Citizen" meant the same thing as "native born citizen.””<br /><br />Response:<br /><br />Yes, provided that “native born citizen” was used to mean a “native” as Vattel defined the word in Section 212. Note that Jefferson naming who should be named to consular positions does not make one mention of a “native born citizen” and he could not have, for no one available to fill those positions was a natural born citizen. I also explained in my article that “natural born citizen” is a term of art. Blackstone in his Commentaries said that terms of art "must be taken according to the acceptation of the learned in each art, trade, and science."<br /><br />I also said in my article that in later years the expression “native born citizen” took on a different meaning, one that meant that the person was born in the U.S., with no reference to the citizenship of the parents. The term was so used to distinguish a born citizen (acquired U.S. citizenship from the moment of birth by being born in the U.S.) from a naturalized citizen, i.e., those who acquired U.S. citizenship through a naturalization Act of Congress “at birth” (were born out of the U.S. to one or two U.S. citizen parents) or after birth (were born out of the U.S. to two alien parents). Since only presidents and vice-presidents are required to be natural born citizens, there was no need for Americans to be so precise when referring to U.S. citizens.<br /><br />You said:<br /><br />“[I]n a letter to his commanders in 1777, General Washington requested they create a special guard unit for his protection. He specifically requested, ‘You will therefore send me none but Natives, & Men of some property, if You have them—I must insist that in making this Choice You give no Intimation of my preferance of Natives, as I do not want to create any invidious Distinction between them & the Foreigners.<br /><br />Response:<br /><br />Here too, Washington is using “Natives” the same way that Jefferson used “Native citizens.” Again, those soldiers would not have been born in the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents, so he could not have been referring to Vattel’s “natives, or natural-born citizens.”<br /><br />Continued . . .Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-11039961727052763872021-01-30T18:49:11.454-05:002021-01-30T18:49:11.454-05:001 of 3
Charles Hughes:
You said:
Mario wrote: “...1 of 3<br /><br />Charles Hughes:<br /><br />You said:<br /><br />Mario wrote: “He did not use the clause “natural born citizen” which he could easily have done given that the Framers used the clause in the Constitution only in 1787. Jefferson, therefore, distinguished a native citizen from a natural born citizen. This is speculation on your part.<br /><br />Response:<br /><br />We are all speculating what the Framers meant by “natives,” “native citizens,” and “natural born citizen.” The difference between us is in how much evidence we can provide to support our positions and in the end, who has the more convincing argument.<br /><br />You said:<br /><br />If like Vattel, Jefferson considered natives and natural born to be the same things, he could have used either term to convey the same idea.<br /><br />Response:<br /><br />Which terms Jefferson would have selected depended on what message he intended to convey. Jefferson in recommending those consular positions could not have used “native citizens” or “natural-born citizen” in the sense that Vattel used those terms when Vattel said: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." The people that Jefferson proposed be named to the consular positions were not born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents. At best, their children would have met that definition.<br /><br />You said:<br /><br />Just as future Supreme Court Justice, James Iredell said that the Constitution required the President to be a native (“No man but a native, and who has resided fourteen years in America, can be chosen President.” in North Carolina debates over ratification of the Constitution). Iredell must have equated native with natural born.<br /><br />Response:<br /><br />That is correct, for Vattel did exactly that. In fact, the Constitution itself provides, in addition to requiring a president to be at least 35 years old, that the president be a “natural born citizen” and have resided a minimum of 14 years in the United States. Hence, Iredell, knowing the eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, simply used “native” in the place of “natural born citizen” given that Vattel defined the words the same.<br /><br />You said:<br /><br />During the Constitutional Convention when it was suggested that only natives be eligible to be senators, future Supreme Court Justice James Wilson complained that as he was not a native (born in 1742 in Scotland, came to America about 1766), he would be shutout from serving in the government he was helping to form.<br /><br />Response:<br /><br />That is correct, for Wilson was not born in the colonies, but rather in Scotland. Hence, he was what Jefferson called a “citizen[] alien-born.”<br /><br />Continued . . .Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-33649415730791439942021-01-30T12:26:54.270-05:002021-01-30T12:26:54.270-05:00Mario wrote: “He did not use the clause “natural b...Mario wrote: “<i>He did not use the clause “natural born citizen” which he could easily have done given that the Framers used the clause in the Constitution only in 1787. Jefferson, therefore, distinguished a native citizen from a natural born citizen.</i><br /><br />This is speculation on your part. If like Vattel, Jefferson considered natives and natural born to be the same things, he could have used either term to convey the same idea. Just as future Supreme Court Justice, James Iredell said that the Constitution required the President to be a native (“<i>No man but a native, and who has resided fourteen years in America, can be chosen President</i>.” in North Carolina debates over ratification of the Constitution). Iredell must have equated native with natural born.<br /><br />During the Constitutional Convention when it was suggested that only natives be eligible to be senators, future Supreme Court Justice James Wilson complained that as he was not a native (born in 1742 in Scotland, came to America about 1766), he would be shutout from serving in the government he was helping to form. <br /><br />You said back in 2009, “<i>During the founding, "natural born Citizen" meant the same thing as "native born citizen.”</i>”<br /><br />Historical tidbits: in a letter to his commanders in 1777, General Washington requested they create a special guard unit for his protection. He specifically requested, “<i>You will therefore send me none but Natives, & Men of some property, if You have them—I must insist that in making this Choice You give no Intimation of my preferance of Natives, as I do not want to create any invidious Distinction between them & the Foreigners.</i>”<br /><br />Mario wrote, “<i>Native citizen was more inclusive, for it included persons who were born in the colonies and who became citizens through the Revolution and natural born citizens who were born in a state to citizen parents.</i>“<br /><br />We seem to agree that it is clear the Founders/Framers did not have the same definition of “natives” as Vattel.<br /><br />North Carolina Debates:<br /><br />https://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/conv1788/conv1788.html<br /><br />Washington letter to commanders:<br /><br />https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-09-02-0301<br /><br />Mario Apuzzo blog:<br /><br />http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/01/difference-between-natural-and-native.html?m=0<br /><br />Wilson debate over senate being natives:<br /><br />https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_809.aspCharles Hugheshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08495522719004584229noreply@blogger.com