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 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 921-922 next last
To: calenel; BP2
Correction, 1795:

this 1790 act was specifically repealed in 1795 and replaced with the same exact clause you quoted EXCEPT the words “natural born” have been deleted leaving only the word “citizens”. [Section 3 Naturalization Act of 1795]

281 posted on 12/04/2008 9:50:17 AM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
And where was it that it started, 'Saddleback' or something? Muahahahahahah

It is hard to do for we humans, but I dare say Justice Thomas is more motivated by the Constitution and his deep love for that and this nation than he is motivated by the asshat who maligned him for personal empowerment with sicko liberals.

282 posted on 12/04/2008 9:52:23 AM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000

What do you suggest?

Thanks.


283 posted on 12/04/2008 9:56:50 AM PST by Grampa Dave (http://freedommarch.org/Home_Page.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: wndawmn666
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.

So if a child is born on American soil to an American parent and a foreign parent (as my children are) then these children are ineligible to serve as president and are thus categorized as second-class citizens?

So I can serve as President but my California-born children cannot because their mother is a legal Ukrainian immigrant? If my children cannont aspire to the presidency as their father can, then my children are second-class citizens.

That's a crock and everyone knows it. We do not have second-class citizens in this country. No court will, in this day and age, designate millions of American-born citizens as second-class on the basis of the allegiance of their parents.

Again, you people are making stuff up.

284 posted on 12/04/2008 9:58:32 AM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie; Smokin' Joe; OL Hickory; Poincare; Calpernia; Fred Nerks; null and void; pissant; ...

Let me emphasize a portion of the FAM that I didn't before:

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."

As the referrence says above, the 1790 Act was repealed (in 1795). The 1795 Act was repealed in 1802, with parts amendments in 1855, 1934, 1941, 1952, 1954, etc... blah, blah... All STATUTES, right?

BUT, given that there is no current day statute that defines NBC in this Constitutional context, the Justices will look backwards to aid in interpretation. "What did the Framers mean with "Natural Born Citizen"?

The Justices will consider things like the Federalist Papers, Blackstone's Commentaries, and other documents of the time. They'll probably look at the differences between "citizen" and "subject," and how that relates to Art 2, Sect 1, Clause 5.

Those learned in the law in the framing era would have been familiar with Blackstone’s Commentaries, which James Madison described (in the Virginia ratifying convention) as “a book which is in every man’s hand.”

Blackstone wrote the following:

"Allegiance, both express and implied, is however distinguished by the law into two sorts or species, the one natural, the other local; the former being also perpetual, the latter temporary. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king’s protection; at a time too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themselves."

... and Barack Obama, Jr, was a British Citizen from his father at birth... it even says so on his website ...

Yeah, it'll be sweet... a defining time for our nation.


285 posted on 12/04/2008 10:03:18 AM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: Buckarow

“CLANG>>>CLANG...NOW HEAR THIS....The Supremes will order the electors to verify the candidates qualifications before they vote yea or nae....this will stop the process and force the electors to do the job that created the positions they now hold....it is not a ceremonial job but one of substance and if they certify any candidate who later proves to be unqualified ,they are subject to the laws of treason .”

Do you think that SCOTUS will supply a stone carved definition for ‘Natural Born Citizen’tommorrow. This a fundamental issue that Leo is appealing.

To get there would take more time and a full court hearing probably. Without that definition the electors can play fast and lose with the standard again.


286 posted on 12/04/2008 10:04:21 AM PST by Blu By U
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: calenel
Since you are familiar with the information and where it might be found, can you cite the specifics if that law? I've been hunting the specific reference for a while now with no luck.

Pretty sure it doesn't exist. The argument for that interpretation doesn't rely on US law, but on what the Founding Fathers understood to be Blackstone's understanding of the British concept of "natural born subject."

287 posted on 12/04/2008 10:07:32 AM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
What do you suggest?

Thanks.

A Supreme Court demand that Obama (or any other candidate) be qualified by examination of the long form BC, and all other associated documents in question like his pasport records, financial aid applications, travel records, etc. After O's team submits the documents for validation, subpoena the governor of Hawaii for the vault copy for comparison.

Anything less will be followed by a SC decision finding him in Contempt of Court and refusing to acknowledge Obama as President. That lays the ground for the Supreme Court to overturn every single law Obama signs.

I can't think of anything better as we are running out of civilized ways to resolve issues with the Left. But we have our DUTY to the Constitution.

288 posted on 12/04/2008 10:10:24 AM PST by Centurion2000 (To protect and defend ... against all enemies, foreign and domestic .... by any means necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: BP2
"Yeah, it'll be sweet... a defining time for our nation."

Indeed. A day of days.
A defining time for the Law, COTUS and SCOTUS.

289 posted on 12/04/2008 10:11:16 AM PST by Diogenesis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: calenel; Windflier; BP2
I withdraw the slur of questioning your honesty and apologize for same ... I misread your post to have a 'not' regarding the 1790 act, as in 'not recended'. BUT, the following from Leo's own writing will help to frame a better picture of the 1795 act and it's relevance. Again, please accept my apology for impugning your honesty. [Windflier, herein is the notion of both parents being citizens which you referenced earlier but could not pin down the source; this may have been the source of your notion.]

From Leo's excellenet explanation [http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/ LEO DONOFRIO COMMENTS ON JUDAH BENJAMIN ARTICLE CONCERNING NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AND THE COMMON LAW] :

Congress having repealed the”natural born provision” leads to the core problem ... Naturalization only concerns people who were, “at birth” not US citizens.

People born in other countries as citizens of foreign powers, but who immigrate to the USA are naturalized. Naturalization has nothing to do with citizens like McCain who are born abroad to American citizens and are US Citizens by statute “at birth”.

Naturalization also could not cover Obama who was (we assume) born on United States soil (Hawaii).

But at the common law, naturalized citizens WERE considered to be “NATURAL BORN SUBJECTS”. At the common law, the act of naturalization returns them to birth and they are effectively reborn to the allegiance of the King.

The best case which explains this concept is “United States vs. Rhodes” :

...

‘All persons born in the Allegiance of the King are Natural- Born Subjects, and all persons born in the Allegiance of the United States are Natural-Born Citizens. Birth and Allegiance go together. Such is the Rule of the Common Law, and it is the Common Law of this country…since as before the Revolution.’

...

The common law is not our national law. Our national law is the Constitution. We do not follow the common law, we follow the Constitution.

And this is important to note because the common law, which may also bear out that Obama isn’t eligible, at the same time provides Obama with his best argument that he is eligible. The reason for this lies on that part of Justice Swayne’s opinion ... Here is Justice Swayne’s relevant quote:

“An alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject.” Co. Litt. 129. “Naturalization takes effect from birth; denization from the date of the patent.” Vin. Abr. tit. “Alien,” D. …The power is applicable only to those of foreign birth. Alienage is an indispensable element in the process. To make one of domestic birth a citizen is not naturalization, and cannot be brought within the exercise of that power. There is a universal agreement of opinion upon this subject. [**26] Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. [60 U.S.] 578; 2 Story, Const. 44.

United States v. Rhodes, 27 F. Cas. 785, at 790 (1866)

The status of the candidate “at birth” is relevant to Article 2, Section 1. For somebody to be a “natural born citizen” and therefore eligible to be President, they must have the status “at birth”.

If the common law were applied in the USA, then all naturalized citizens would be eligible to be President since the common law understanding was that, as quoted by Swayne, “Naturalization takes effect from birth”. If we followed that today, then all naturalized citizens would be returned to birth to be reborn and could therefore claim “natural born citizen” status.

... naturalized citizens like Arnold Schwarzenegger can NOT be President since they are naturalized and the US doesn’t recognize those persons as “natural born citizens”.

But Mr. Benjamin also argues that this idea comes from the common law and he is wrong about that. The common law holds that Arnold Schwarzenegger, having been naturalized, would have been a “natural born subject”. And if we then apply the common law concept and understanding of “natural born subject” to “natural born citizen” then Arnold Schwarzenegger would be eligible to be President since, at common law, his birth status could change upon naturalization.

But Arnold Schwarzenegger is not eligible to be President because the United States doesn’t follow common law. The United States follows national law, and our national law is the CONSTITUTION.

Obama was not naturalized, and I do not make the argument above to say that naturalization laws apply to Obama - although they might if he were not born in Hawaii- but let’s assume he was. I make the argument above to show that the United States is not following common law and the Constitution will not be interpreted as if it were controlled by common law. There is enough evidence in our history and other laws to bear this out.

The first of which is precedent. In our history as a nation, every President we have ever had was born in the United States to parents who were both US Citizens.

And it’s very important, especially in light of Justice Scalia’s very recent comments to the Federalist Society of November 22, 2008 wherein he said that the common law is dead and does not control in the USA:

“The common law is gone. The federal courts never applied the common law and even in the state courts it’s codified now.”

You might want to hear Justice Scalia’s entire presentation: http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1193/pub_detail.asp

Furthermore, it is very clear that the those who wrote the 14th Amendment believed that only those so qualified as all previous Presidents were eligible to be President under Article 2, section 1, Clause 5. This was made clear by Madison’s article:

“Why U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Can Never Be Considered Settled Birthright Law” Dec 10, 2006

“John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section, considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” If this law was simply to reaffirm the common law doctrine then the condition of the parents would be totally irrelevant.”

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, must also be read in light of the 14th Amendment which is just as much a part of the Constitution as any other part.

290 posted on 12/04/2008 10:11:33 AM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: SueRae
Pelosi?

Damn....that would likely be worse than Obama!

291 posted on 12/04/2008 10:16:12 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (No Burkas for my Grandaughters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93; romanesq; Clintonfatigued; ncfool; ZULU; 2ndDivisionVet; Sub-Driver; ...

PING


292 posted on 12/04/2008 10:19:24 AM PST by ExTexasRedhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freekitty; TXRed; MinuteGal; Wild Irish Rogue; unkus; flat; dynachrome

PING


293 posted on 12/04/2008 10:20:26 AM PST by ExTexasRedhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

And from Leo's letter to ABC issued today:

The main argument of my law suit alleges that since Obama was a British citizen - at birth - a fact he admits is true, then he cannot be a “natural born citizen”. The word “born” has meaning. It deals with the status of a presidential candidate “at birth”. Obama had dual nationality at birth. The status of the candidate at the time of the election is not as relevant to the provisions of the Constitution as is his status “at birth.” If one is not “born” a natural born citizen, he can never be a natural born citizen.

294 posted on 12/04/2008 10:23:40 AM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: ExTexasRedhead

Maybe now, then agan, maybe not.


295 posted on 12/04/2008 10:23:49 AM PST by SouthTexas (Remember, it took a Jimmy Carter to bring us a Ronald Reagan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: oldfart

Copied verbatim from the US Constitution ‘transcript’ located at the U S National Archives website:

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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/print_friendly.html?page=constitution_transcript_content.html&title=The%20Constitution%20of%20the%20United%20States%3A%20A%20Transcription


296 posted on 12/04/2008 10:24:57 AM PST by freepersup (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: oldfart
That comma is in the original too.

I have the Constitution hanging on the wall in my living room and there is no comma in that position.

It reads:

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....

There is no comma after "States" and before "at" in the copy on my wall.

297 posted on 12/04/2008 10:25:10 AM PST by thesetruths
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
What is amazing in that Senate Resolution declared that McCain was a natural born citizen because he had two American parents and was born on an American military base, when in fact McCain knew all along that he had not been born on a military base but in a hospital in Colon, Panama which the birth certificate he later released showed. Is that why he never raised the issue during the campaign???

Exactly. McCain, Hillary and Obama, the entire Senate, knew that McCain was not a natural-born citizen, so they tried to make it so by erasing the Constitution with a non-binding resolution as was shown in that article I listed before.

Had there been no doubt of Obama or McCain's natural-born status, neither of them would have been headed down the road of legislating the issue. They knew, and they knew back in April, 2008 and tried to act on it.

This alone is proof that if there was no legal grounds to expel either of them, they both wouldn't have been screwing with the Constitution at such a late stage in the game, during their own campaigns. They knew, and that's the bottom line.

If you go to the forums listed at the bottom of that article - http://grou.ps/zapem/wiki/23460 You will see the entire process through the Senate and the lawyers they dragged in, the entire sourced testimony. It's quite alarming the time spent on this issue if it was a moot issue.

298 posted on 12/04/2008 10:31:29 AM PST by Bronwynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: BP2; All

U.S. Citizenship Law and Overseas Americans

http://www.aca.ch/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=51&Itemid=80


299 posted on 12/04/2008 10:35:03 AM PST by toldyou (Even if the voices aren't real they have some pretty good ideas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaraM

All the work on http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/ is a distraction and waste of time.

It doesn’t matter if the “certification of live birth” is real or fake. Even if it is real it is no proof that he was born in HI or of his “natural born” Citizenship.


300 posted on 12/04/2008 10:36:57 AM PST by kpp_kpp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 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