New legal argument and tactic to help Donald Trump posted by Attorney Mario Apuzzo in his legal blog. President Trump needs to file an action in federal court immediately (before the Senate takes up the Impeachment Article) in order to fully protect his Due Process Rights!
With the now open collaboration of big tech oligarchs, big media, and big government to suppress, censor, cancel, and de-platform political opposition and debate, we are rapidly moving towards a Fascist form of government. We must learn from history. These are the words from a Fascist of the past:
“We do not argue with those who disagree with us, we destroy them.”― Benito Mussolini
Benito Mussolini – Italian Fascist and Dictator
Before becoming a Fascist, Mussolini was a Socialist and Communist.
Action must be taken before we have a complete Fascist takeover of our country and our Constitution is on the rubbish heap of history.
(Dec 30th, 2020) — The question is whether both Houses of Congress need to reject a state’s Electoral College vote for an objection made during the joint session of Congress on January 6, 2021 to prevail. As explained below, both Houses of Congress do not have to agree to reject a state’s Electoral College votes for those votes to be voided.
There are five scenarios under Section 15 of the Electoral Count Act of 1887(3 U.S.C. § 1 et. seq.) (“ECA”) for counting and resolving Electoral College votes disputes in the joint session of Congress. Scenarios 1 through 4 deal with cases in which both Houses either agree or disagree to the regularity of the votes. Scenario 1 is the only case in which Congress receives just one Electoral College return and both Houses must agree to reject the vote. Scenario 5 is the only one of the five scenarios in which the two Houses disagree, but it only applies when Congress receives competing electoral returns (one state submits to Congress more than one Electoral College vote return). With such disagreement, it provides that the stalemate between the Houses shall be broken by Congress having to accept the electoral votes which a state’s executive (Governor) shall have certified. Hence, under Section 15, one could argue that Scenario 5, which allows for a case in which both Houses disagree, only applies if Congress receives official competing electoral returns and that if it receives only one such return then the two Houses must under Scenario 1 both agree to reject that vote. As explained below, Congress in joint session is not shackled by Section 15 because Section 15 is unconstitutional and even if constitutional, it does not apply to a case of a corrupt underlying popular vote.
Again, there are five scenarios for resolution under Section 15 of the ECA. Scenarios 1 through 4 deal with cases in which both Houses either agree or disagree to the regularity of the votes. Scenario 5 provides:
“(5) But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted.”
Scenario 1 only deals with cases in which there is only one return of a state’s electoral votes. It says that the votes must be counted unless both Houses reject the vote. So here we have both Houses agreeing with each other to reject the vote. Implicit is the case in which both Houses agree to accept the vote either with no objection by any Senator or Representative or with voting to accept the electoral votes after an objection. In both cases, the Houses are agreeing with each other.
Scenario 2 through 5 deal with cases in with there is more than one return of a state’s electoral votes. Scenario 2 is applicable only if there was a “safe harbor” determination by a state’s “judicial or other methods or procedures.” Scenario 3 only applies if there is a dispute as to what state authority is the legal authority to appoint the electors and “the lawful tribunal of such State” decides the matter. But again, both Houses must agree on that decision. Scenario 4 only applies if there is no “safe harbor” relief as to which of two electoral vote returns are the valid ones. Again, both Houses must either agree to accept or reject a return. Scenario 5 is the only one of the five scenarios in which the two Houses disagree. With such disagreement, it provides that the stalemate between the Houses shall be broken by Congress having to accept that slate of electors which a state’s executive (Governor) shall have certified.
So, Scenario 1 through 4 of Section 15 of the Electoral Count Act only apply if both Houses of Congress agree, either to accept or reject any state’s electoral votes. They do not apply if both Houses of Congress disagree with each other. What applies in that case is Scenario 5. Scenario 5 is the only one in which the ECA includes the possibility of both Houses disagreeing on how which of the competing electoral returns are to be counted. But we cannot use Scenario 5 if Congress received only one Electoral College vote return from a state. Furthermore, the provision purports to resolve the dispute between the Houses through the governor’s certification. Seven contested states, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin all sent competing electoral returns to Congress. No governor of any of those states has certified the Republican returns. Hence, Congress can easily just ignore those competing Republican returns and treat each such state as having provided just one electoral return.
Notwithstanding this statutory structure, in a case in which Congress only received one state’s official electoral return, both Houses of Congress do not have to agree to reject that state’s Electoral College votes for those votes to be voided. First, it is doubtful that Section 15 of the ECA is constitutional. Simply, Congress cannot substantively amend the Constitution with a statute. Congress amended Article II, Section 1 with the Twelfth Amendment because it saw the original Constitution as having not provided for a substantive election problem. If Congress wanted to substantively change the Twelfth Amendment, again for failure of the Constitution to have provided a solution to a certain problem, it had to do so with another amendment as it did through the Twentieth Amendment. Congress cannot just carve out pieces of the Twelfth Amendment and then change them with a statute such as Section 15 of the ECA. The necessary and proper clause of Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution does not apply here to save Section 15. …
The Fallacies of Congressional Legislative Attorney Jack Maskell’s Definition of a “Natural Born Citizen” | by Attorney Mario Apuzzo
Bob Quasius at Café Con Leche Republicans [in 2013] said:
“The citizenship of Ted Cruz’s father is irrelevant. Ted Cruz was born a citizen of the United States based upon his mother’s citizenship and many years of residency in the U.S., per the federal statutes in effect at the time Ted Cruz was born. A natural born citizen is one who was born a citizen, as compared to someone not born a citizen and naturalized. Ted Cruz was born a citizen, and therefore he’s a natural born citizen.”
[Editor’s Note: click here for more on Ted Cruz, Kamala Harris, and others who lack natural born Citizen of the United States status.]
Quasius’ argument is the classic example of Jack Maskell’s formal and informal logical fallacies of what the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is which are contained in his two Congressional Research (CRS) Memos. Jack Maskell wrote in his CRS memo published in 2009:
“[T]he weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that ‘natural born citizen’ means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship ‘at birth’ or ‘by birth,’ including any child born ‘in’ the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.”
“The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term ‘natural born’ citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship ‘by birth’ or ‘at birth,’ either by being born ‘in’ the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship ‘at birth.’” In this memo, he also added: “there is no Supreme Court case which has ruled specifically on the presidential eligibility requirements, although several cases have addressed the term ‘natural born’ citizen. And this clause has been the subject of several legal and historical treatises over the years, as well as more recent litigation.”
Maskell made his 2009 statement with little force and certitude. He said that this “scholarly legal and historical opinion” “appears to support the notion” as to what the “natural born Citizen” clause means. A “notion” is defined, in relevant part, as: “1. A general idea 2. a belief; opinion 3. an inclination; whim.” Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language 410 (1983). Here is another definition: “1: Idea, conception 2: a belief held: opinion, view 3: whim, fancy .” The Merriam-Webster Dictionary 480 (1974). And this “opinion” only “appears to support” that notion. Here, we can see that Maskell did not give us a clear and definite statement as to what the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is. Rather, he only put forth a theory that this “scholarly legal and historical opinion” supported this general idea, belief, or opinion of what the definition of a “natural born citizen” is.
While his 2011 statement contained more force, Maskell still stated that a “natural born citizen” “would mean” any person who is a “citizen by birth” or “citizen at birth,” regardless of the means by which the person obtained that birth status. Maskell said “would mean.” That means that the meaning that he gave to a “natural born citizen” is conditioned upon something else also being true. But he did not tell us what that something else is, let alone demonstrate that whatever it is, is true. He also stated that “there is no Supreme Court case which has ruled specifically on the presidential eligibility requirements.” As we shall see below, this is not true, for there are U.S. Supreme Court cases which have addressed the “common-law” definition of a “natural-born citizen” and that is a presidential eligibility requirement. … Continue reading this legal essay about who is a “natural born Citizen” of the United States, and the logical fallacies about same that were put out by the totally politicized Congressional Research Service to justify the running of Article II constitutionally ineligible candidates in both major political parties, and the comments about same at: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2019/06/the-fallacies-of-congressional.html