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 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 921-922 next last
To: Bronwynn

“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 ...”

It is alarming. To think that SCOTUS would strike this case and add to their malfeasance would be elevated treason.


301 posted on 12/04/2008 10:44:53 AM PST by Blu By U
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]

To: rfreedom4u
When they examine his BC, if they find it is not valid, Thomas will be screwed for the rest of his life. He will be seen as a traitor to his race. I would fear for his life as there are some who would wish him harm for enforcing our constitution.

Thank God for true patriots.

I was thinking exactly along these lines. Is there any capacity for a "volunteer body guard" auxiliary force for government officials? I would gladly take up defending Justice Thomas. He seems as out of place as Ron Paul: A true patriot in a position of government power.

302 posted on 12/04/2008 10:47:10 AM PST by TonyStark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
I fully expect this to be sent back to district with stipulation that the NJ authorities verify Hawaiian birth for Barack Obama.

That's the way I see this also. The Donofrio case is not about whether or not any of the candidates is a natural born citizen, but rather about whether or not the NJ SoS did its job of certifying that the candidates met the Constitutional requirements.

The case for natural born citizenship will be round 2.

303 posted on 12/04/2008 10:47:15 AM PST by Roccus (Someday it'll all make sense.............maybe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: All
And to those of you that are just now finding out about this or are new to the forum (not like I'm that old here), here are 3 of the cases at the Supreme Court level.

Philip Berg Docket #08-570
Leo Donofrio Docket #08A407
Cort Wrotnowski Docket #08A469

Just in case you want to see them actually on the Supreme Court web site.
304 posted on 12/04/2008 10:49:34 AM PST by jcsjcm (Upholding the Constitution til my last breath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: Roccus

Let’s hope Donofrio’s team goes down that line of questioning if this does go to trial. But if they get bogged down over the definition of “natural born” as a matter of Obama’s father nationality, without going into the real issue (IMO) involving his actual place of birth, then I have little hope for this case.

Thanks for answering my questions - I was hoping someone would respond and validate my thinking on this.


305 posted on 12/04/2008 10:56:56 AM PST by motoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Roccus

Let’s hope Donofrio’s team goes down that line of questioning if this does go to trial. But if they get bogged down over the definition of “natural born” as a matter of Obama’s father nationality, without going into the real issue (IMO) involving his actual place of birth, then I have little hope for this case.

Thanks for answering my questions - I was hoping someone would respond and validate my thinking on this.


306 posted on 12/04/2008 10:57:08 AM PST by motoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

For some reason, ...my fuzzy memory is saying Biden....but I am not sure.


307 posted on 12/04/2008 11:01:29 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (No Burkas for my Grandaughters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: ZekeNY

Go back to your hole, nasty n00b ... and tell David Axelrod that the astroturf campaign doesn’t work at conservative sites like FreeRepublic.


308 posted on 12/04/2008 11:04:39 AM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
Maybe it goes back to Rush talking about the Thomas writing about Biden's question during his confirmation hearing:

Biden's torpedo question to Clarence Thomas

309 posted on 12/04/2008 11:09:47 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (No Burkas for my Grandaughters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000

Thanks.

We want the same goal.


310 posted on 12/04/2008 11:13:49 AM PST by Grampa Dave (http://freedommarch.org/Home_Page.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Thank you for posting this historical data on this subject, and for the scholarly presentation.

Most of us here are only just beginning to get an education in these matters, so posts of this nature help tremendously in raising the understanding of the group.

I’ve been thinking that given the intense interest in this issue, that it would be great if FR had a resource page of some sort on the site, where everyone could go to study the legal and historical documents applicable to this issue.

It would certainly cut down on all of the multiple postings of case law and constitutional passages on every thread.

Thanks again for your help.


311 posted on 12/04/2008 11:17:41 AM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000
The Justices will also be aware that the Electors can vote for Obama anyway with the understanding that Obama will immediately pardon all electors for all crimes. Presidential pardon powers are near absolute

An illegitimate and illegal President cannot issue a pardon that holds any validity. The Electors would still be guilty of Treason. One traitor cannot pardon another.

312 posted on 12/04/2008 11:20:14 AM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: BP2
Thanks for the colorful post.

Have you been taking lessons from MiaT?

313 posted on 12/04/2008 11:21:52 AM PST by Churchillspirit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: alexander_busek

...The U.S. requires immigrants applying for naturalization to renounce their previous citizenship..

This is just not factual accurate. The US does not require that immigrants renounce their previous citizenship. There are tens of millions of legal Americans holding dual-citizenship (my own mother included) for this very reason. The US doesn’t encourage it, but does not in any way, forbid it.

Sorry!


314 posted on 12/04/2008 11:22:05 AM PST by Big_Monkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: jla

Here is the quotation from Article 1 of the US Constitution:

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.

(that second comma is troubling)


315 posted on 12/04/2008 11:23:51 AM PST by FFranco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: MozarkDawg
It's not just illegal aliens, tourists visiting from Germany or Spain, etc., a woman who happens to be pregnant and gives birth during the visit, they are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" so that baby is NOT an American citizen, though he was born on U.S. soil.

There is obviously a great need for the SC to clarify this issue. As you said, it's unlikely that a child born in the US through some unintended misfortune, to foreign tourist parents would be given American citizenship, but I don't know that it wouldn't be so.

There's obviously far too much ambiguity in the law. It needs to be clarified and settled, once and for all.

316 posted on 12/04/2008 11:25:15 AM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

Hear hear.


317 posted on 12/04/2008 11:26:44 AM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: ExTexasRedhead

Thank you Justice Thomas.


318 posted on 12/04/2008 11:29:01 AM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: BP2

ha! It’s not only “not fair”, it’s “racist”, ya know. ;)


319 posted on 12/04/2008 11:30:26 AM PST by CaribouCrossing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: sneakers
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.

We obviously need for the Supreme Court to review this area of the Constitution and issue a clarifying judgment. There is just so much confusion over what ought to be a fairly straight-forward thing.

It would seem to me, that in the interest of simplicity, and to bring our practices in alignment with the thinking of the Founders and the Constitution, that it should be clearly stated (finally) that a Natural Born Citizen, is defined as any person born on US soil to two parents who were themselves born on US soil.

In addition, it should be stated that those parents can not have not renounced their US citizenship, and should have lived within US territorial jurisdiction for a specified period of time prior to the birth of the child.

In addition, the SC ought to clear up the mis-interpretation of the 14th Amendment as it regards the automatic granting of US citizenship to children born of foreign nationals on US soil.

This is an abomination, and has gone on far too long. It is a long-term threat to to our national security, as it has encouraged and enabled the establishment of what can be rightly described as a foreign "nation" within the confines of the continental US. This simply cannot be in accordance with what the Founders intended for the future of our country.

We truly need some clarity on the entire issue of US citizenship.

320 posted on 12/04/2008 11:43:45 AM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 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