Mario Apuzzo

User avatar
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater
Posts: 5206
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2301

Post by Dr. Kenneth Noisewater » Tue Feb 19, 2019 1:50 pm

bob wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 1:02 pm
FWIW, Apuzzo is back in CDN comments section.

I have a rule to not engage Apuzzo on the law, but I know others enjoy that.
I see he's playing word games again and when it's pointed out he's wrong he tries to argue that someone is just trying to have the last word.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26937
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2302

Post by bob » Thu Feb 28, 2019 6:31 pm

Atticus Finch wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:44 pm
I reviewed the comments at the conservativedailynews.com website and made several comments on my own under the name "atticus finch"
That comments section is mostly D - E - D, but Rambo Ike has words for you, Atticus*: The framers rejected British common law because Sam Adams (who was not a framer) said some words in 1771 (which is not 1787). :roll:


* And you, too, RC!
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15686
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2303

Post by Reality Check » Thu Feb 28, 2019 7:35 pm

i cannot comment there. Apparently I have been blocked.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26937
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2304

Post by bob » Thu Feb 28, 2019 7:37 pm

Reality Check wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 7:35 pm
i cannot comment there. Apparently I have been blocked.
The commenting function is degraded; you can no longer respond to a comment, but rather have to post a new comment at the top.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15686
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2305

Post by Reality Check » Thu Feb 28, 2019 8:00 pm

bob wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 7:37 pm
The commenting function is degraded; you can no longer respond to a comment, but rather have to post a new comment at the top.
I see that now. I had to go all the way to the bottom to find the comment form.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26937
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2306

Post by bob » Sun Mar 03, 2019 12:35 am

Over at that CDN article, Apuzzo's on fire! His latest snit is new (for him) and involves "authoritative dicta," i.e., that well-considered dicta from the U.S. Supreme Court is binding:
Charles Hughes wrote:Your reliance on the footnote in Doughty v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London is faulty as the [statement] in Minor is not “[c]arefully considered language”. The footnote refers back to this statement by the Court “Because deleting the challenged statement would have impaired the analytical foundation of the Court’s ultimate decision to issue mandamus, that statement is properly categorized as part of the court’s holding, not as dictum.”

This is similar to the statement by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in United States of America v. John Allan Crawley, 837 F.2d 291

“So instead of asking what the word “dictum” means we can ask what reasons there are against a court’s giving weight to a passage found in a previous opinion. There are many. One is that the passage was unnecessary to the outcome of the earlier case and therefore perhaps not as fully considered as it would have been if it were essential to the outcome. A closely related reason is that the passage was not an integral part of the earlier opinion–it can be sloughed off without damaging the analytical structure of the opinion, and so it was a redundant part of that opinion and, again, may not have been fully considered. Still another reason is that the passage was not grounded in the facts of the case and the judges may therefore have lacked an adequate experiential basis for it; another, that the issue addressed in the passage was not presented as an issue, hence was not refined by the fires of adversary presentation. All these are reasons for thinking that a particular passage was not a fully measured judicial pronouncement, that it was not likely to be relied on by readers, and indeed that it may not have been part of the decision that resolved the case or controversy on which the court’s jurisdiction depended (if a federal court).”

In the Minor case the single sentence “These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” can be “sloughed off without damaging the analytical structure of the opinion”.

Here it is without the sentence.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their …In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

The citizenship question is still resolved, the doubts of some authorities still exist and the Constitution does not “confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void”.
Apuzzo wrote:First, you say that my reliance on footnote 3 in Doughty v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 6 F.3d 856, 861 n.3 (1st Cir. 1993) is faulty. There is no denying what the court said there in the main part of the decision and in n.3. What the court explained about dictum supports my position that Minor’s definition of a natural born citizen is not dictum and that even if it is, the statement is authoritative. Here is the pertinent part of Doughty:

Dictum” is a term that judges and lawyers use to describe comments relevant, but not essential, to the disposition of legal questions pending before a court. See Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 454-55, 32 L. Ed. 2d 212, 92 S. Ct. 1653 (1972); Dedham Water Co. v. Cumberland Farms Dairy, Inc., 972 F.2d 453, 459 (1st Cir. 1992); United States v. Crawley, 837 F.2d 291, 292-93 (7th Cir. 1988). Given the familiar principle that “whatever may be done without the employment of [mandamus], may not be done with it,” Ex parte Rowland, 104 U.S. 604, 617, 26 L. Ed. 861 (1882)); see also Helstoski v. Meanor, 442 U.S. 500, 505-08, 61 L. Ed. 2d 30, 99 S. Ct. 2445 (1979), the Court’s statement in Thermtron defies description as mere dictum. To the exact contrary, the mandamus remedy employed in Thermtron necessarily betokened, and, indeed, depended on, the Court’s antecedent holding anent the unavailability of direct appellate review. Because deleting the challenged statement would have impaired the analytical foundation of the Court’s ultimate decision to issue mandamus, that statement is properly categorized as part of the court’s holding, not as dictum. 3

~~~~~

Here is Footnote 3.

On this issue, all roads lead to Rome. Were we to assume, favorably to appellants, that the challenged statement did not comprise part of the Court’s holding, we would nevertheless hew to it. Carefully considered language of the Supreme Court, even if technically dictum, generally must be treated as authoritative. See United States v. Santana, 6 F.2d 1, (1st Cir. 1993) [No. 93-1393, slip op. at 19-20 ]; McCoy v. Massachusetts Inst. of Technology, 950 F.2d 13, 19 (1st Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 118 L. Ed. 2d 545, 112 S. Ct. 1939 (1992). This truism is fortified here inasmuch as the rule that the Court’s statement enunciates — that remand orders are not final judgments — has been adopted in a long string of circuit-level opinions. See, e.g., Garcia, F.2d at [slip op. at 7-8 ]; Melahn v. Pennock Ins., Inc., 965 F.2d 1497, 1500 (8th Cir. 1992); V & M Management, 929 F.2d at 833-34 ; Corcoran, 842 F.2d at 34; Nasuti v. Scannell, 792 F.2d 264, 267 (1st Cir. 1986); see also Milk ‘ N’ More, Inc. v. Beavert, 963 F.2d 1342, 1344 (10th Cir. 1992); McDermott Int’l v. Lloyds Underwriters, 944 F.2d 1199, 1203 (5th Cir. 1991).

~~~~~

So, I have said about Minor’s discussion on citizenship in general and natural born citizen specifically the same that Doughty said about appellant’s argument there that the challenged statement was dictum. Minor’s voting rights holding is “necessarily betokened, and, indeed, depended on” the Court’s antecedent holding” concerning Virginia Minor being a citizen without the aid of the Fourteenth Amendment because she was a natural born citizen. Despite the parties’ demurrer on the citizenship issue, the Supreme Court thought it important to find sua sponte that women had been and could be citizens as much as men. Because deleting the challenged statement about who the “citizens” and “natural-born citizens” were would have impaired the analytical foundation of the Court’s ultimate decision that even if women are citizens they do not have the constitutional right to vote, the Court’s statement as to who the natives or natural born citizens were which allowed the Court to easily dispose of the question of whether Virginia Minor was a citizen is categorized not only as part of the Court’s ultimate holding but actually a separate holding and not dictum. In footnote 3 the Doughty court added that even if the challenged statement had been dictum, the court would still follow it because “[c]arefully considered language of the Supreme Court, even if technically dictum, generally must be treated as authoritative.”

Second, we cannot “slough[] off without damaging the analytical structure of the opinion” the Minor’s statement: “These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” The Court explained that “it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also” because they were the “natives, or natural-born citizens.” It added that there was never any doubt that the children born in the country to citizen parents were themselves citizens. Indeed, the Court held that Virginia Minor was a “citizen” because she was born in the country to citizen parents, i.e. because she was a “natural born citizen.” It added that “some authorities” included as “citizens” children born within the jurisdiction to alien parents. It said that there were doubts whether those children (that “class”) were “citizens” (a reference to the Fourteenth Amendment and The Slaughterhouse Cases which was decided by the same Minor Court except for Chief Justice Chase who had since passed away and which said they were not “citizens” under the Fourteenth Amendment), but never any doubts about the natural born citizen “class” being citizens. The Court said that it was not necessary for it to resolve those doubts. After all, Virginia Minor did not need the aid of the Fourteenth Amendment given that she was a natural born citizen. The Court concluded that for purposes of the case before it, it was sufficient that all children born in the country to citizen parents were themselves citizens. Through its dichotomy of these two classes of citizens, Minor drew a distinction between the natural born citizens and what would later be recognized by Wong Kim Ark as “citizens” of the United States at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment who were not born under the same birth circumstances as the natural born citizens.

Minor’s discussion and statement of the meaning of a natural born citizen also affected how the U.S. Supreme Court decided Wong Kim Ark in 1898. Rather than sloughing off Minor’s “[t]hese were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners” as it did The Slaughterhouse Cases statement about children born in the U.S. to alien parents not being citizens of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court cited and quoted Minor’s definition of those exact words. Wong, born in the U.S. to alien parents who were domiciled and permanently residing in the U.S., did not have it as easy as Virginia Minor in proving that he was a “citizen” of the United States. Given his birth circumstances, Wong was not and could not be a natural born citizen like Virginia Minor and therefore as Minor had explained there were doubts whether he was a “citizen” of the United States. Indeed, the U.S. Government refused his entry into the U.S. because it said he was not a “citizen” of the United States. If Wong would have been a natural born citizen as defined by Minor, there would not have existed any doubt that he was a citizen. The Wong Kim Ark Court had to travel on a tortured historical path, even resurrecting as a source for national U.S. citizenship the dead English common law that only prevailed in the states and not on the national level, to show that he was as much a “citizen” of the United States as a natural-born citizen child born in the country to citizen parents, not by virtue of being a “natural born citizen” under the common law with which Minor explained the Framers were familiar and which defined the clause, but only by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.

As we can see, Minor’s natural born citizen analysis is integral not only to its decision, but also to the Wong Kim Ark decision, forcing the Court in Wong Kim Ark to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction” clause and in so doing resorting to using the colonial English common law and its jus soli, as modified by its requirement that the alien parents be domiciled and permanently residing in the U.S., to find that Wong was a “citizen” of the United States at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. Reading the decisions in tandem, we can see how the Constitution makes a critical distinction between an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States at common law and a “citizen” of the United States at birth by virtue of only the Fourteenth Amendment.

So, I prevail either way. First, Minor’s definition of “natives, or natural-born citizens” is not dictum. Second, even if it is dictum, it is still authoritative.
Apuzzo's test driving his new argument that Minor is binding. But he's still stuck in garage because no one agrees with his misreading of Minor.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12514
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2307

Post by Notorial Dissent » Sun Mar 03, 2019 1:19 am

Or anything else he has spouted, for that matter.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

Mr. Gneiss
Posts: 1795
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 12:37 am

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2308

Post by Mr. Gneiss » Sun Mar 03, 2019 1:42 am

So bob, is Mario bloviating that the discussion of citizenship in Minor is not your regular ol' run of the mill dicta but rather judicial dicta?

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26937
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2309

Post by bob » Sun Mar 03, 2019 3:06 am

Mr. Gneiss wrote:
Sun Mar 03, 2019 1:42 am
So bob, is Mario bloviating that the discussion of citizenship in Minor is not your regular ol' run of the mill dicta but rather judicial dicta?
Yup. And the thing is: he's not wrong (entirely). :shock:

Some courts (mainly federal circuits) have discussed the weight to be placed on well-considered dicta from the U.S. Supreme Court. And there is scholastic literature positing that holding/dicta is a too-simplistic dichotomy; rather, it is more of a spectrum, and that different courts (and different judges) view precedent differently. (There have been articles recently written suggesting that our newest justice isn't a fan of precedent; he can divine the meaning of the text without the perspective of those before him.)

But, even if Apuzzo's in the ballpark about the role of interpretation, Minor on this point actually only says that those born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents are natural-born citizens -- a point that exactly no one disputes.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 28475
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2310

Post by Foggy » Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:29 am

... and Wong Kim Ark is more authoritative on a scale of authoritativeness from 1 to 10, because, as the dissent authoritatively stated, Mr. Wong was eligible to authoritatively run for authoritative president, as he was authoritatively a natural born citizen.
Any time my questions are all fully answered, I know I'm asking the wrong questions. - Bernard Samson

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 8351
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2311

Post by Northland10 » Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:30 am

Yeah.. the dicta argument avoids the simple wrongness of his argument.

Nobody disputes that apples are fruits. This does not mean only apples are fruits.
North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2312

Post by Sam the Centipede » Sun Mar 03, 2019 11:06 am

Northland10 wrote:
Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:30 am
Yeah.. the dicta argument avoids the simple wrongness of his argument.

Nobody disputes that apples are fruits. This does not mean only apples are fruits.
Hmm ... that logic works. Mario Apuzzo is wrong. That doesn't mean that everybody who is wrong is Mario Apuzzo.

Mr. Gneiss
Posts: 1795
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 12:37 am

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2313

Post by Mr. Gneiss » Sun Mar 03, 2019 11:33 am

Thanks bob. I'm just a simple land surveyor so things like Cooley's Dictum (Thomas Cooley was the Chief Justice of the Michigan State Supreme Court who wrote this aid for surveyors entitled, "The quasi-judicial function of surveyors") provide guidance in our work regarding land boundary resolution.

Blovario raising dicta to the rarefied air of a holding is classic Mario. As a land surveyor I can see that some dicta may be more persuasive than other even approaching being authoritative. However, Minor does not say what Mario so desperately wishes it did. Northland10's apple analogy perfectly encapsulates the error in Mario's thinking.

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2314

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Sun Mar 03, 2019 12:15 pm

Foggy wrote:
Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:29 am
... and Wong Kim Ark is more authoritative on a scale of authoritativeness from 1 to 10, because, as the dissent authoritatively stated, Mr. Wong was eligible to authoritatively run for authoritative president, as he was authoritatively a natural born citizen.
No! No! Foggy

The majority didn’t say Wong Kim Ark was a natural-born citizen, only that the circumstances of his birth were entirely consistent with natural-born citizenship.

I am sure any good Birther can see the distinction. :deadhorse:

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26937
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2315

Post by bob » Tue Mar 05, 2019 4:51 pm

Over at his blog, Apuzzo is now opining about Hoda Muthana:
Apuzzo wrote:You[*] said: "While the government generally can’t revoke the citizenship of a natural-born citizen against their will, U.S. law recognizes some situations where a “free-will decision” by the individual can be held to constitute a voluntary renunciation of their citizenship." See https://hotair.com/archives/2019/03/05/ ... und-court/

The Constitution makes a critical distinction between a “natural born Citizen” of the United States and a “Citizen” of the United States. Only the President and Vice-President must be natural born citizens. At common law with which the Framers of the Constitution were familiar a natural born citizen was a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth. See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”). If one was a natural born citizen, there never was any doubt that one was a citizen. The doubts regarding citizenship have arisen when one was not a natural born citizen and one sought to demonstrate that one was a “citizen” either under the Fourteenth Amendment (“at birth”) or naturalization Act of Congress (by formal naturalization). So, for Muthana to be a natural born citizen of the United States she would have had to be born in the United States to parents who were both citizens of the United States at the time of her birth. If she satisfies the definition of a natural born citizen there would be no doubt that she is a “citizen” of the United States by birth and only by birth.

[ * * * ]

But as we see, there are doubts whether Muthana is a “citizen.” Muthana was born in New Jersey to alien parents. She satisfies the place of birth requirement but not the citizen parents one. Hence, she is not nor can she be a natural born citizen. That is why there is doubt regarding whether she is a “citizen.” At most, she can be a "citizen" of the United States “at birth” under the Fourteenth Amendment (born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”). Assuming that she can show that she was born in the United States and that at the time of her birth she was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (that she was not born to a father who was a foreign diplomat), she can be a “citizen” of the United States “at birth” under the Fourteenth Amendment.

But even if she can prove that she is a U.S. “citizen” “at birth,” we still have the issue of whether she renounced that nationality by voluntarily doing any of the statutorily prescribed acts with the intention to relinquish her nationality. See 8 U.S. Code § 1481. Some of those acts include (1) “taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years,” (2) entering or serving in the armed forces of a “foreign state,” or (3) bearing arms against the U.S. when such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the U.S. When the U.S. government claims that one has renounced his or her U.S. nationality, the burden is upon the government to prove it. But that burden is only by a preponderance of the evidence, which is the lowest burden of proof in our legal system (it is not by clear and convincing evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt). Furthermore, under the same statute, “[a]ny person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.”
TL;DR: Per Apuzzo, Muthana may or may nor be a citizen at birth (but definitely not a natural-born citizen!), who may or may not have demonstrated her intent to relinquish her citizenship. :roll:


* No idea who this mysterious "you" is; I infer Apuzzo was trying to comment on a story on Hot Air (but it wasn't published).
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2316

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Tue Mar 05, 2019 6:22 pm

Bob, please spare a thought for all those electrons you and Mario have disturbed. :deadhorse:

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2317

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Thu Mar 07, 2019 3:50 pm

Mario is still flogging his dead horse over at Conservative Daily News.

https://www.conservativedailynews.com/2 ... /#comments

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26937
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2318

Post by bob » Thu Mar 07, 2019 4:03 pm

Grumpy Old Guy wrote:
Thu Mar 07, 2019 3:50 pm
Mario is still flogging his dead horse over at Conservative Daily News.
E.g.:
Apuzzo wrote:If as you claim Minor used the English common law rather than a common law based on the law of nations when it defined a natural born citizen, then why did Minor when defining citizenship in general and a natural born citizen specifically not use the language of the English common law, a language that we saw so much of in Wong Kim Ark?
It was nearly 10 years ago(!) when Apuzzo first invented concluded that American (or "U.S. federal") common law was the basis for Minor's dicta.

:yawn:
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 9078
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 1 dog, 1 cat, and 1 horse, 4 granddogs, and one grandcat.

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2319

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Thu Mar 07, 2019 4:05 pm

Every time I see this thread I think of "The Godfather".
A 19th Amendment Centennial Moment: African-American Naomi Anderson was a leader in the suffrage movement in the west, a published poet, barber, community activist, and teacher.

User avatar
Jim
Posts: 3300
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 4:05 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2320

Post by Jim » Thu Mar 07, 2019 4:11 pm

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote:
Thu Mar 07, 2019 4:05 pm
Every time I see this thread I think of "The Godfather".
I lean more to Steve Martin in "The Lonely Guy".

"SOMEONE LISTEN AND NOTICE ME!!!"

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26937
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2321

Post by bob » Tue Apr 02, 2019 2:41 pm

P&E: What was the Founders’ Intent in Creating the Electoral College?:
“GREAT COMPROMISES WERE MADE”

* * *

On March 28, The Post & Email interviewed New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo on his thoughts about the present system of electing the president and calls to change it. We brought to his attention the “interstate compact” which reportedly plans to activate once states representing 270 electoral votes are pledged.

In an in-depth response, Apuzzo said:
This is a very complicated and involved area; there are a lot of moving parts to it. There is a constitutional basis to the Electoral College. Some would say it’s anachronistic, but it’s not, because the same concerns that faced the Founders face the nation today.

How to elect the president of the new nation was decided at the Constitutional Convention, where great compromises were made in order to bring the union to fruition. You had large state and small states. The small states would not have joined the large states if they were to have lost their influence, their power to operate as a sovereign state. Yhe compromises are very important, and that leads to the Electoral College, which I submit was also a compromise for the small states.

We have a constitutional republic, not a democracy, and we also have a federalist system where the states are guaranteed their independence except to the degree that they gave power to the central government. The federalist system has worked well for us because it allows the states to operate, and all the control does not come from one place. You have decentralization, so to speak, but we also need a national government, because that’s why they came together to form the union.

The Constitution guarantees each state a republican form of government. Article IV, Section 4 provides: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…”

This is very important to understand, because James Madison wanted to avoid factions. How did he define “factions”? These were groups of people who had a common interest that would violate the rights of others or harm the nation as a whole. Alexis de Tocqueville would write about it as “the tyranny of the majority.” What was that? A faction which could grow to more than 50% of the population and sacrifice, to its own passions and interests, both the public good and the rights of other citizens.

How did the Founders deal with all of this? Madison proposed a republic, which would give the minority the protection it needed. This was very important for our nation because the Framers were very leery of democratic majority which would eat up the interests of others and the grand good because of some passion or self-interest. That’s why we have the Electoral College.

Interesting reading is Hamilton’s Federalist Paper #68. He talks about the mode of electing the president and his fear of directly electing the president. What’s happening with the interstate compact is we’re turning over, to a super-majority, the national vote, All you need is just over 50%, which will control everything for the whole country. It is contrary to the foundations of our nation, contrary to the Constitution. It’s not guaranteeing small states the protection they need as republican states. It’s violating the letter and spirit of what Hamilton said about having a day when a group of people get together and say, because of passion or whatever is going on, “We’re going to elect the president.”

We’re not talking about the House of Representatives or the Senate; we’re talking about one individual who has tremendous power over the whole nation. So you’re going to give a mass of people, with one vote more than 50%, and that faction is going to control what the rest of the country does.

This compact would force the people of each state to abandon their own independent judgment as to who should be president in favor of the will of the majority and large or urban population centers of other states. It would impose the will of the people in large or urban states as to who should be president on the will of others in small or non-urban states. It would turn the election into a national urban election rather than a state-by-state election.

Each state was guaranteed in the Constitution the right to vote for a president; again, this is part of republicanism. What’s strange is that of the states in the compact, even if somebody else won the Electoral College of a state, those electoral votes are not going to that candidate because the majority in other states would control it. In other words, you have these states sitting on the sidelines saying, “Who got the majority of the votes?” but it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter who got the electoral votes of the states in the compact. Those Electoral College votes could have gone to somebody else. We’re trumped — and that’s not a play on words — by the national vote. So even though somebody else would have gotten those votes, he/she doesn’t get them because the popular votes trumps it.

There are a lot of problems with it constitutionally. If you look at the Ninth Amendment, it gives rights to the people not given away. What about the rights of the people in the smaller states? They’re losing their right to elect the president.

If you look at the Tenth Amendment, those are powers reserved to the states. What happens to the power of the state to have a say in who is elected president? They’re losing it because of the compact between others states, so now the states are competing with each other. That is something we’re supposed to avoid, especially when it comes to the president. They’re rigging the system.

Another clause in the Constitution, which is the “privileges and immunities” clause under Article IV, says, “The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.” What happened to the citizens in the small states? What happened to their “privilege and immunity” of electing the president? It’s gone, because now they’re subject to the will of the majority, which Hamilton and de Tocqueville warned us about. They lose their right.
Our interview with attorney Appuzo will be continued in a second installment.
:yawn:
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2322

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Tue Apr 02, 2019 4:27 pm

If I could be bothered, I could present all that information in several short paragraphs.

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2323

Post by Sam the Centipede » Tue Apr 02, 2019 7:24 pm

Grumpy Old Guy wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 4:27 pm
If I could be bothered, I could present all that information in several short paragraphs.
Why bother with paragraphs? A cup of warm spit would suffice.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26937
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2324

Post by bob » Wed Apr 03, 2019 2:41 pm

P&E wrote:Our interview with attorney Appuzo will be continued in a second installment.
P&E: What was the Founders’ Intent in Creating the Electoral College? Part 2:
“THAT’S NOT OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT”

In Part 1 of our interview with Atty. Mario Apuzzo about what appears to be growing support among states, individuals and politicos to abolish the Electoral College, the Constitution’s provision for the election of the President of the United States, Apuzzo made the case that if it were to occur, the country’s major urban centers would acquire the sole power to elect the chief executive.

* * *
Apuzzo wrote:If you go on to the Electoral College clause itself in Article II, Section 1, clause 2, that clause gives the states the powers to “appoint.” Now what does that mean? These people will be the electors, but they do not have the power to reshuffle or change the Constitution with respect to the Electoral College.

States can have compacts, but when involving the supremacy of the national government, they need the consent of Congress. This is definitely a national, supremacy question. Even if the compact is legal, you need the consent of Congress. But if the compact is not legal, you can’t say, “Oh, we’re going to get the approval of Congress.” I submit that this compact is not legal, because they’re not just appointing electors; you’re actually deciding who gets the electoral votes. Even if somebody else won those electoral votes, you’re allowing yourself to be trumped by a national vote.

If these states want to do this, they have to pass a constitutional amendment. Why are they still tinkering with the Electoral College? If they have all this power to do this, why don’t they just propose a constitutional amendment? Why even have the Electoral College involved somehow? Because they know the Electoral College is in the Constitution and they’re trying to work around it.

If the popular vote is such a good idea, and some of these professors who have written on it say it’s legal, do a constitutional amendment, and the same people who they say should elect the president vote on this same issue?

Let the people themselves that they say should vote for the president decide this issue, and let them draft a constitutional amendment. They’re being dishonest by giving the impression that this change is “for the people.” “The people” vote for the president, and Hamilton said that, but the states also vote for the president. “The people” is the whole nation, not just a majority of the nation.

How do you get the whole nation? By allowing each state to vote. You don’t take away the right of that state because some other majority was created by factionalism — Los Angeles, New York, Chicago — and now people in the other states have to live by the values, ideas and lifestyles of other people?

Everybody has a right to his own lifestyle and values, but when it comes to voting, you have to follow the Constitution. This whole thing about direct election, and one man, one vote is really a falsehood. Let everybody change the Constitution and not go around it like this.

We all know the illegal idea of gerrymandering, which is playing with boundaries to get representation. This is really a gerrymandering-type scheme, because they’re gerrymandering the population centers. By giving those population centers all this influence and power, they’ve trumped the rest of the nation. So those who control the main population centers control the presidency. The compact would centralize power over who should be elected president in these major urban population centers.

Of course, you have to look at who’s sponsoring this. The project is sponsored by Democrats, although there are some Republicans supporting it as well. You can ask anyone on the street, “Who’s the vice president?” and they don’t know. So do they know what the Electoral College is? It’s a fraud to take a poll where you ask, “Do you think the people should decide who the president is and not this Electoral College?” If they don’t know anything about it, of course they’re going to say, “The people should decide it.”
The Post & Email asked Apuzzo about any challenges which might be made to the interstate compact if it acquires 270 electoral votes and officially attempts to launch, to which he responded:
A candidate always has standing; that’s one of the big issues in federal court. I think that a candidate should voice an objection during the campaign.
We asked, “Is it actually a change in law?”
It’s not a constitutional law. It’s like a state or Congress passing a law. The candidate would have to say that he is being denied his electoral votes.

I’ll give you an example. What if he won California and is supposed to get those electoral votes? But the compact says, “No, our votes are going to him or her,” meaning someone else. But he would say, “It’s unconstitutional” because he’s supposed to get those votes. It’s a violation of the Constitution the way it’s set up, because the state hasn’t just appointed electors; it has actually cast them away to someone else because of a popular vote, which is contrary to the philosophy of the Constitution’s founding.

It’s political philosophy. I don’t think this issue has been studied deeply. I think I’ve mentioned some things that haven’t been mentioned by anybody else, although I haven’t done exhaustive research. The small states and large states had to come together as a union, but they weren’t going to do that if they were going to lose their sovereignty.

Swiss philosopher Emmerich de Vattel wrote “The Law of Nations,” which heavily influenced the Founders in their drafting of the Constitution and governing of the new nation

Sovereignty was a critical element for the Founders, and they got the idea from Emmerich de Vattel. He was really the proponent of sovereignty, and it gave them the idea that your sovereignty is everything when you’re a nation. They decided that they had to fight for sovereignty, and that’s why they broke from England. If you look at the history, they became free and independent states.”

* * *

“The parts make up the whole. Without the parts, you don’t have a whole. It’s like your body; you’re only as young as your oldest part. You could be in tremendous shape, but your foot doesn’t work and you can’t walk. You need all the parts. Each part has to be working properly, so the states are very important.

The Constitution says that the federal government has to guarantee each state a “Republican Form of Government.” What does that mean? There are different meanings. Let’s say the state is being invaded by an army. That’s like invading the whole United States, and they have to pull in the national powers to protect that state. But it means more than that; it gives you the idea of republicanism and shows how important it was to avoid “factions” in which 50/50 + 1 is going to control everything and 49% have no rights. That’s not our form of government. A lot of people don’t understand it or how important it is: it gives everybody a voice, the majority and the minority. What could be better than that?
“It perhaps would have been easier for the Founders to allow a simple majority to control everything,” The Post & Email observed, and Apuzzo responded:
Eventually the majority can control if they test the laws. Take, for example, our courts. That’s an institution that is supposed to stand on the sidelines, and whenever the majority does something that’s bad for the minority, they’re supposed to step in.

The easy example there is “discrimination.” You have all kinds of discrimination: race, disability, nationality, age, gender. You have all these factors which make up the population, and you’re not supposed to give people benefits or burdens based on those things. Everybody’s supposed to be equal. Some people are faster than others; some people are smarter than others; you can’t control that. But you should control where people are gaining over others because of factors that should not come into it. That’s where the courts are supposed to step in and maintain an equal playing field. That keeps the majority in check, because the majority can make laws.

However, there has to be a standard, which in the grandest sense is the Constitution. We also have federal laws, states laws, and common law, which is courts. Those court decisions become law, which we call the common law. We also have regulations. All that together becomes a super-moral brain, and those laws are supposed to be fair and moral and proper and just, and then you judge everything that happens in the nation by those standards. That’s how you protect people, whether you’re a majority or minority.
Please watch for the powerful conclusion to our interview with Atty. Apuzzo in the near future.

:yawn:
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2325

Post by Sam the Centipede » Wed Apr 03, 2019 2:48 pm

I am so pleased that we have bob to read stuff for us. Coz I don't think I can be bothered to read Moronio's ramblings, his Tagliatelle Apuzziane.

Post Reply

Return to “Lesser Lights”