Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Thomas Breaks Tradition: Forces Supreme Court to Look at Obama Citizenship Case
THE AFRO-AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS ^ | 12/3/08 | James Wright, AFRO Staff Reporter

Posted on 12/03/2008 11:43:31 PM PST by BP2

 
U.S. Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas
By James Wright
AFRO Staff Writer

(December 3, 2008) - In a highly unusual move, U.S. Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has asked his colleagues on the court to consider the request of an East Brunswick, N.J. attorney who has filed a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama’s status as a United States citizen.

Thomas’s action took place after Justice David Souter had rejected a petition known as an application for a stay of writ of certiorari that asked the court to prevent the meeting of the Electoral College on Dec. 15, which will certify Obama as the 44th president of the United States and its first African-American president.

The court has scheduled a Dec. 5 conference on the writ -- just 10 days before the Electoral College meets.

The high court’s only African American is bringing the matter to his colleagues as a result of the writ that was filed by attorney Leo Donofrio. Donofrio sued the New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Wells, contending that Obama was not qualified to be on the state’s presidential ballot because of Donofrio’s own questions about Obama citizenship.

Donofrio is a retired lawyer who identifies himself as a “citizen’s advocate.” The AFRO learned that he is a contributor to naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com, a Web site that raises questions about Obama’s citizenship.

Calls made to Donofrio’s residence were not returned to the AFRO by press time.

Donofrio is questioning Obama’s citizenship because the former Illinois senator, whose mom was from Kansas, was born in Hawaii and his father was a Kenyan national. Therefore, Donofrio argues, Obama’s dual citizenship does not make Obama “a natural born citizen” as required by Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution, which states:

“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President…”

...to prevent the meeting of the Electoral College on Dec. 15, which
will certify Obama as the 44th president of the United States...

Donofrio had initially tried to remove the names not only of Obama, but also the names of Republican Party presidential nominee John McCain and Socialist Workers’ Party Roger Calero from appearing on the Nov. 4 general election ballot in his home state of New Jersey.

McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone when it was a U.S. possession. Calero would be ineligible to be president because he was born in Nicaragua.
After his efforts were unsuccessful in the New Jersey court system, he decided to take his case to a higher level.

On Nov. 6, Souter denied the stay. Donofrio, following the rules of the procedure for the Supreme Court, re-submitted the application as an emergency stay in accordance to Rule 22, which states, in part, that an emergency stay can be given to another justice, which is the choice of the petitioner.

Donofrio’s choice was Thomas. He submitted the emergency stay to Thomas’s office on Nov. 14.  Thomas accepted the application on Nov. 19 and on that day, submitted it for consideration by his eight colleagues - known as a conference - and scheduled it for Dec. 5.

On Nov. 26, a supplemental brief was filed by Donofrio to the clerk’s office of the Supreme Court. A letter to the court explaining the reason for the emergency stay was filed on Dec. 1 at the clerk’s office.

Thomas’s actions were rare because, by custom, when a justice rejects a petition from his own circuit, the matter is dead. Even if, as can be the case under Rule 22, the matter can be submitted to another justice for consideration, that justice out of respect, will reject it also, said Trevor Morrison, a professor of law at Columbia University School of Law.

Morrison said that Thomas’s actions are once in a decade.  “When that does happen, the case has to be of an extraordinary nature and this does not fit that circumstance,” he said. “My guess would be that Thomas accepted the case so it would go before the conference where it will likely be denied. If Thomas denied the petition, then Donofrio would be free to go to the other justices for their consideration.  

“This way, I would guess, the matter would be done with.  Petitions of Donofrio’s types are hardly ever granted.”

Traditionally, justices do not respond to media queries, according to a spokesman from the Supreme Court Public Information Office.

Thomas was appointed to the Supreme Court by President George H.W. Bush in 1991 and has been one of its most conservative members.

Before his ascension to the court, he was appointed by Bush to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Earlier, he served as chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - appointed by President Reagan - and worked various jobs under former Republican Sen. John Danforth.

It would take a simple majority of five justices to put Donofrio’s emergency stay on the oral argument docket. Because it is an emergency by design, the argument would take place within days.

Donofrio wants the court to order the Electoral College to postpone its Dec. 15 proceedings until it rules on the Obama citizenship. He is using the 2000 case Bush vs. Gore case as precedent, arguing that it is of such compelling national interest that it should be given priority over other cases on the court’s docket.

“The same conditions apply here,” Donofrio said in his letter to the court, “as the clock is ticking down to Dec. 15, the day for the Electoral College to meet.”

Audrey Singer, a senior fellow at Washington’s Brookings Institution, who is an expert on immigration, said that the Donofrio matter is “going nowhere.”

“There is no way that anyone can argue about whether Barack Obama is a citizen,” Singer said. “In this country, we have a system known as jus soli or birthright by citizenship. You are a citizen by being born on American soil and he (Obama) was born in Hawaii.”

Singer said that Donofrio’s argument that Obama’s father was a Kenyan national does not matter because citizenship is not based on parentage, but on where someone was born.

“This is the issue that some people have with illegal aliens in our country,” she said. “Children of illegal aliens, if they are born in the United States, are U.S. citizens. That is in the U.S. Constitution.”

 



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bho2008; birthcertificate; case; certifigate; constitution; court; lawsuit; naturalborncitizen; notthisshiitagain; obama; obamatransitionfile; obamatruthfile; president; scotus; supreme; supremecourt; take; talkradioignores; tinfoil
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 921-922 next last
To: egannacht

Were Bobby Jindal’s parents born in the U.S.?


241 posted on 12/04/2008 8:09:25 AM PST by classified
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: slnk_rules
They were saving their money to 1) pay cash for houses (they hate interest!) and 2) send their kids to school.

Same thing with the Vietnamese I know, except they had just their own family. However, they worked minimum wage jobs during the day, went to school at night, and also did piece-work welding at home. They saved their money for about 3 years and paid cash for their house.
242 posted on 12/04/2008 8:12:20 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: classified

Don’t know, but if he were to run for POTUS, I’d find out real quick. Again, all my posts were rhetorical for my specific points.


243 posted on 12/04/2008 8:14:08 AM PST by egannacht
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: BP2

Andrew Jackson was the son of two parents who were not born on U.S. soil. Five other presidents (Thomas Jefferson, James Buchanan, Chester Arthur, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover) each had one parent not born on U.S. soil. Obama would be the sixth president to have one parent not born on U.S. soil.
This “natural born = both parents born on U.S. soil” argument is completely bogus and fabricated and exists nowhere in the U.S. Constitution.

(The post above was posted by Drew68: Is this accurate, and besides your statement about Arthur, and I believe someone else posted that Wilson’s mother was English, that would make at least 2 presidents who got passed the Natural Born clause. Are the others that Drew68 posted also correct examples)?


244 posted on 12/04/2008 8:14:52 AM PST by classified
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: BP2

BUMP


245 posted on 12/04/2008 8:15:50 AM PST by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BP2

Maybe posted elsewhere, but World Net Daily has posted a petition and is taking orders for letters to SCOTUS to consider hearing case till 12:00 Eastern Time.


246 posted on 12/04/2008 8:17:52 AM PST by Freedom56v2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: egannacht

Perhaps someone should approach Rush’s program today with the fact that if Jindal’s parents are not born in the U.S. then Jindal is not a Natural Born Citizen so therefore he would not qualify for Potus. This is one way to talk about and introduce the issue of Natural Born. The Democrats would make sure that this Natural Born clause would disqualify Jindal.


247 posted on 12/04/2008 8:21:10 AM PST by classified
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: BP2
There is no requirement that a “natural born” U.S. citizen have both parents be U.S. citizens or even to be born on U.S. soil or territory.

However it would be required that Obama be born to Stanley Dunham (his mother) on U.S. soil as his father was not a U.S. citizen and his mother was not old enough to automatically convey “natural born” status upon her son; if he were in fact born in a foreign nation.

Please get at least the basics correct or someone might think you have no idea what you are posting about.

248 posted on 12/04/2008 8:22:29 AM PST by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed.... so how could it be Redistributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

Thanks, LucyT

Save the Constitution Ping.


249 posted on 12/04/2008 8:31:18 AM PST by Iowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: BP2
Thomas’s actions were rare because, by custom, when a justice rejects a petition from his own circuit, the matter is dead. Even if, as can be the case under Rule 22, the matter can be submitted to another justice for consideration, that justice out of respect, will reject it also, said Trevor Morrison, a professor of law at Columbia University School of Law. Morrison said that Thomas’s actions are once in a decade. “When that does happen, the case has to be of an extraordinary nature and this does not fit that circumstance,” he said. “My guess would be that Thomas accepted the case so it would go before the conference where it will likely be denied. If Thomas denied the petition, then Donofrio would be free to go to the other justices for their consideration. “This way, I would guess, the matter would be done with. Petitions of Donofrio’s types are hardly ever granted.”

As is required with almost all media reports, one has to read between the lines. In this article, there is actually some very significant information. In effect, the constitutional expert, who just happened to clerk for a very liberal judge on the 9th CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (most liberal district) and then at the USSC for RUTH BADER GINSBERG (most liberal Justice) before becoming a professor at COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY (most liberal law school, which is really saying something) saying that:

1. Thomas' actions were "once in a decade";
2. Inconsistent with Court custom since they usually don't question another Justice's denial out of their own circuit; and
3. Only cases that were of an "extraordinary nature got this type of treatment.

He then asserts this weird analysis about Thomas accepting the case so it could be killed before the entire conference?!? Huh? Why not just deny it and be done with it. There is no reason to kill it in conference... this guy is really grasping at straws to explain the Court's behavior. But, on the other hand, if one DID see this as "a case of extraordinary nature", then these actions would be understandable. But that would mean that AFRO magazine would have to acknowledge that this isn't as screwball as the media wants us to believe.

This is a good sign, IMO.

250 posted on 12/04/2008 8:38:59 AM PST by Shady Ray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: classified
Were Bobby Jindal’s parents born in the U.S.?

It's not their birth but their citizenship that is important here.

251 posted on 12/04/2008 8:40:02 AM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: Windflier; Cvengr
"Then, you've got children born to one US parent, and one foreign parent on US soil, as is the purported case with Obama. Donofrio's case contends that he cannot be a Natural Born Citizen because of the citizenship of his father, who was a Kenyan national and subject of Great Britain."

That would apply to my son. He is 'native born' because he was born in the US, but not "natural born" because his dad is Canadian. He is not eligible for President. I am "natural born" citizen because both of my parents were born on American soil, as was I.

Maybe I'll run next time. :-)

252 posted on 12/04/2008 8:44:50 AM PST by sneakers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Here is the low down on Chester Arthur:

The Naturalization Act, passed by Congress on June 18, 1798, increased the amount of time necessary for immigrants to become naturalized citizens in the United States from five to fourteen years.

Although it was passed under the guide of protecting national security, most historians conclude it was really intended to decrease the number of voters who disagreed with the Federalist political party.

At the time, most immigrants (namely Irish and French) supported Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic Republicans, the political opponents of the Federalists. This act was repealed in 1802.

THE ACT OF 1798 WAS REPEALED IN 1802.

HE MARRIED A US CITIZEN IN 1821 AND WAS A US CITIZEN BY THE TIME CHESTER WAS BORN IN 1829.


253 posted on 12/04/2008 8:50:42 AM PST by wndawmn666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

A President’s parents do not have to be ‘natural born’ citizens. They just have to be US citizens before the child is born. Meaning they renounced any allegiance to a foreign nation BEFORE the child was born.

If two Germans came here, went through naturalization, and had a child born in California, that child could serve as President.

If the parents were here on vacation and were still loyal to Germany, the child could only be considered a US citizen by birth.

This means they could hold a position in the Senate or House (only required to be a citizen) but they could not serve as President.


254 posted on 12/04/2008 8:50:43 AM PST by wndawmn666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth

This is correct.

He is a ‘citizen’ by virtue of being born in the United States but he is not a natural born citizen because his parents had loyalty to another nation upon his birth.


255 posted on 12/04/2008 8:50:43 AM PST by wndawmn666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: classified

It doesn’t matter if his parents were born in the United States.

If they were US citizens (via naturalization) and he was born on US soil, he could serve as President.

The parents do not have to be natural born citizens. They just have to be US citizens. This means they have denounced allegiance to another nation and there would be no other nation that could claim jurisdiction over them at the time of their child’s birth.


256 posted on 12/04/2008 8:50:43 AM PST by wndawmn666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Frantzie; Smokin' Joe; OL Hickory; Poincare; Calpernia; Fred Nerks; null and void; ...
>>> However it would be required that Obama be born to Stanley Dunham (his mother) on U.S. soil as his father was not a U.S. citizen and his mother was not old enough to automatically convey “natural born” status upon her son; if he were in fact born in a foreign nation.

AH, so if Stanley Dunham was not old enough to convey her US Citizenship status to her baby (the law stated 19 years at the time), and Barack Obama Sr was a British citizen, AND Barack Obama Jr, was born in the US (just for arguement's sake), that would make Barack Obama, Jr, a ___________________ .

However, let's see what Chapter 7 of the Foreign Affairs Manual (7 FAM 1130, pg 8) says (and yes, I know it addresses children born abroad):

The Constitution does not define "natural born". The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

SO, there IS a difference between "Citizenship by Statute" and "Natural Born Citizen"...

And the Constitution specifically and explicitly prohibits "ex post facto" in the 9th Amendment ("No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.")

Hmmmm.....

257 posted on 12/04/2008 8:56:13 AM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: LucyT; Windflier; Fred Nerks; Diogenesis; Grampa Dave; pissant; Calpernia; ntnychik; MeekOneGOP; ...

258 posted on 12/04/2008 8:56:21 AM PST by PhilDragoo (Hussein: Islamo-Commie from Kenya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: calenel; pissant; SE Mom; LucyT; Kevmo; Calpernia; Polarik; PhilDragoo; David

Thanks for the excellent history lesson and documentation.

I notice than none of Move One bsers have challenged your reply. They are waiting for Zer0’s lawyers to come up with some lawyerese bs.


259 posted on 12/04/2008 8:57:51 AM PST by Grampa Dave (http://freedommarch.org/Home_Page.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; Berosus; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fred Nerks; george76; ...

Okay, now it’s gettin’ interesting again. :’) Thanks LucyT.


260 posted on 12/04/2008 9:02:43 AM PST by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/_______Profile finally updated Saturday, October 11, 2008 !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 921-922 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson