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 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 921-922 next last
To: Citizen Blade
So, we couldn't charge them with a crime or make them pay taxes?

YES to the the former, and NO to the latter.

You appear to be a person who has a good deal of familiarity with the law, and constitutional rulings. I'll grant that you may hold an advantage over me in that regard. That's ok.

I'm making my comments and expressing my viewpoint based on my admittedly elementary understanding of what case law, and constitutional passages which I've become familiar with.

I'm not a lawyer, but I am a citizen patriot. At the end of the day, I side with our Constitution, and the intent of our Founders, who were brilliant and successful men of great education. They were also men of common sense, deeply religious, and of great vision. Above all, they wrote that common sense and their deeply held beliefs into our Founding Document. That is why the US Constitution outshines every other article of founding on the planet, and why America is the most successful nation in world history.

We can argue the minutiae of law all you want, but my view is that if the law does not comport with the original intent of the Founders, or offends The People's native sense of what is American, then that law should be abolished.

It is wrong to grant a person full US citizenship, when the circumstance of their birth was achieved through illegal means, in an overt attempt by their parents to take what is not rightfully theirs.

I don't care what "the law" has to say about it. That "law" is immoral, it violates the spirit of the Constitution, and none of us should support it.

341 posted on 12/04/2008 12:42:04 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: BP2

so then no president born in the USA of immigrant parents could ever have been a citizen.


342 posted on 12/04/2008 12:44:06 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chunga

yes that is a new twist.

I have never heard that one before, all it required was you be born in the USA. Not naturalized.

I am just wondering if Obama was adopted somehow and what we are debating is fictional natural born citizen via an adoption altered (legally) birth certificate.


343 posted on 12/04/2008 12:47:16 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: jcsjcm
Naturalized - give up their foreign citizenship US Citizens - born on US soil with no parent being a citizen, 1 parent being a citizen. Natural born - born of 2 US citizens

Where do you get your definition of natural born from? The constitution never defines the term, and SCOTUS has never ruled on it.

344 posted on 12/04/2008 12:47:40 PM PST by kenboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: thesetruths

Back in 1976, when the “Freedom Train” was wending its way around the country, my wife went aboard to see the exhibits. She was given the opportunity to buy an envelope containing photocopies of 1) The Unanimous Declaration, 2) the Constitution, 3) the Bill of Rights and 4) the original handwriten version of the Gettysburg Address. Each of them is/was handwritten. The first three are meticulously written out in careful script while the last was scrawled out in Lincoln’s typical poor handwriting.

I will not swear that my photocopy of the Constitution has not been tampered with because I cannot know that, but there is a comma right where we are talking about. Was it there when the document was adopted? I don’t know. I do know that (lacking photcopy machines) subsequent copies of the original were themselves carefully written out in longhand by people who were good at such things. I don’t know how many copies were made nor do I know that all copies either did or did not have that damned comma.

Granted, a comma there can have an effect on the meaning of the sentence. For us to know one way or another we’d have to look - not at a copy of a copy of a c.... (you get the idea) but at the original. Someone who lives near the National Archives might be able to decide this but lacking that I think we’re just going to have to disagree for now.


345 posted on 12/04/2008 12:49:31 PM PST by oldfart (Obama nation = abomination. Think about it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: Blu By U
"“Children of illegal aliens, if they are born in the United States, are U.S. citizens. That is in the U.S. Constitution.” "

But only if the parent(s) are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Aliens and illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are subject to the jujrisdiction of the governnent of their own country.

Sorry, Charlie. No anchor babies. No Obammy babies either.

346 posted on 12/04/2008 12:52:17 PM PST by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound
Aliens and illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Really? So they can commit crimes on US soil and US law has no jurisdiction over them?

347 posted on 12/04/2008 12:56:09 PM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]

To: oldfart

I’m not disagreeing. I was referring to a printed Constitution published in 1935 in which the comma does not appear. Why would it be in the original but not in published versions since then? I don’t know what the history of publishing the Constitution is, and why the printer would publish it without the comma. It would interesting to see if, when, and why it was published with or without a comma. The sentence doesn’t make sense with the comma inserted, and perhaps if it occurs in the original, it was omitted at some point for grammatical clarity.


348 posted on 12/04/2008 12:59:24 PM PST by thesetruths
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound

are you addressing comment #301? Your response does not make sense..


349 posted on 12/04/2008 1:00:14 PM PST by Blu By U
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]

To: classified
If I am understanding this correctly, a Natural born citizen, is a person who was born on U.S. soil by parents who both were born on U.S. soil.

Apparently, there is great contention over this description of Natural Born Citizen, even amongst the members here. I've taken a lot of shots from lawyerly folks over positing this lately.

My understanding is that the Founders' original intent was that no President should have their loyalty divided between America and another nation. The surest way to ensure that, was to plainly state in our Constitution that a President must be a Natural Born Citizen.

The problem is that they failed to define this in the Constitution. I'm sure that at the time of its writing, the Framers felt no need to precisely define such ordinary and plain language. In the parlance of the time, the phrase would have conveyed their meaning and intent with no mis-understanding.

In my opinion, it's the lawyers who have subverted the Founders' original intent by torturing the language of the Constitution to force meanings from it that were never intended.

If this is allowed to continue, then there isn't much point in retaining the Constitution at all, as the basis upon which all US law resides. We might as well re-incorporate the Republic in whatever form the mob wants, and hope for the best.

Naturally, I don't subscribe to that option. It's why I hope that our Supreme Court will come down with a ruling soon that bolsters and clarifies the original intent of the Framers.

350 posted on 12/04/2008 1:02:45 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: thesetruths

As I said earlier, copies were made by hand by people who could make a fortune these days as forgers. Just because a person could faithfully copy an important document doesn’t mean he was good at punctuation too. I believe there were at least thirteen first generation copies made - one for each state - and no one knows how many more were made from those copies. Every one of those required someone with a steady hand and a good sense of what he was doing. I’m sure some of those copiers were better than others and made mistakes. Heck, my supposed photocopy might actually be from one of those copies of copies.


351 posted on 12/04/2008 1:10:24 PM PST by oldfart (Obama nation = abomination. Think about it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
Obama's personal case is even tougher, because under the citizenship laws at the time, his mother could not have conveyed US citizenship to him, because she had not lived for a period of ten years in the United States, five of them being after the age of 14. She was three months shy of her 19th birthday when Obama was born.

The age of Obama's mother only matters if Little Barack was born overseas. If this case conceeds that he was born in Hawaii, then her age is meaningless.

352 posted on 12/04/2008 1:10:32 PM PST by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: calenel
What's the status of illegal aliens who don't plan on becoming a citizen and have not taken the oath?

What's the status of legal aliens who plan on becoming a citizen but have not yet taken the oath?

In either case, are one or the other, or both, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States yet?

353 posted on 12/04/2008 1:15:26 PM PST by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: oldfart

I found another copy I have which is an official publication of the Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution and it DOES have the comma between “States, at.” So what does this mean?

The phrase “at the time of the adoption of this Constitution” has to refer to something, either to “natural born Citizen” or “Citizen of the United States” or both. It makes the most sense, both historically and grammatically, that it would refer to “Citizen of the United States” since it follows that phrase directly and seems to be the intent of the founders.

At least we are all pulling out our Constitutions and looking at them! Which is a good thing. Thanks for pointing that out in the interest of accuracy, which is what I was interested in.


354 posted on 12/04/2008 1:21:08 PM PST by thesetruths
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies]

To: Kleon
The age of Obama's mother only matters if Little Barack was born overseas. If this case conceeds that he was born in Hawaii, then her age is meaningless.

Right, you are.

I may have to step back from the legal arguments. There's just too much minute detail that gets overlooked in the commentary, which of course leads to more argument. Then, there's everyone chiming in with basic questions, etc.

I'm much more concerned with the moral implications of this issue than I am with the exact wording of various statutes.

In fact, it's my belief that the Framers held morality as a superior force, above the laws of men, and did their very best to encode that into our Constitution. It's what gives the US Constitution its immense power, and is what has allowed us to become the most successful nation in world history.

When lawyers are fighting each other over the precise meanings of words, you need an entity like the Supreme Court to step in with wisdom and deep deliberation to settle the matter.

What do they use as their basis for judgment, and how do they determine the meaning of that signature document? I suggest that they do not approach it from a lawyer's point of view, but from that of the Framers.

355 posted on 12/04/2008 1:22:36 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: oldfart

That reminds me of the story about the printer who set July 4, 1776 into history when it was actually supposed to be July 2!


356 posted on 12/04/2008 1:23:30 PM PST by thesetruths
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: Celtman
Even if this is so (and I am not conceding the point), applying for, receiving, and using an Indonesian psssport were actions taken by Obama himself.

If he, in fact, did so. The whole passport story stems from the claim that U.S. citizens were forbidden from traveling to Pakistan in 1981 and so Obama must have travelled on an Indonesian passport. In the first place that wasn't so, citizens may have been warned not to travel there but there is no evidence supporting the claim that they were forbidden to travel there. In fact during the first half of 1981 the U.S. was announcing multi-billion dollar aid packages for Pakistan and talking about resuming delivery of F-16's. Secondly, Obama left Indonesia when he was 10 and never lived there again. How and where did he get an Indonesian passport? Finally, dual citizenship is not against the law, so even if Obama had a foreign passport it would not count as an expatriating act. He would have had to formally swear allegiance to Indonesia and disavow any further loyalty to the U.S. Since he was in school at the time that's highly unlikely.

357 posted on 12/04/2008 1:26:37 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies]

To: oldfart
Just because a person could faithfully copy an important document doesn’t mean he was good at punctuation too.

Punctuation conventions change over time, and there are different styles of punctuation that are observed even today. We are in a more "when in doubt, leave it out" mode than in the past. I am wondering if that is why it was taken out of my copy on the wall, because it appears to be something that may have been used in a school, and perhaps they "corrected" the punctuation. Or it may have simply been a mistake, or the printer thought it was a mistake and "fixed" it?

358 posted on 12/04/2008 1:36:03 PM PST by thesetruths
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound
But only if the parent(s) are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Aliens and illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are subject to the jujrisdiction of the governnent of their own country.

So if they rob a bank or shoot someone we can't arrest them?

359 posted on 12/04/2008 1:38:46 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas
I think that Justice Thomas understands that this needs to be dealt with because it just isn’t going to go away. I don’t know if he has any opinion about it....he may think it has no merit...but he (I think) realizes it must be examined and not just pushed to the side.

Nothing personal, but statements like this one are deeply troubling to me, and highly irritating, because they suggest that the high court is simply a group of dis-interested scholars in darkened chambers, wholly divested of any sense of import over matters of national importance that may come their way, and who only view these momentous cases in a purely analytical light.

I don't think that that's the case. The high court cleared their docket in 2000 to rapidly address the ballot re-counts in Florida. It was a national crisis, and the high court responded with due diligence, in a timely fashion.

This case is likewise, if not more so. The obvious questions which have arisen concerning Mr. Obama's citizenship are real, and threaten to cause great unrest in the body politic, if they are not satisfactorily put to rest, one way or another.

The Supreme Court Justices know this, and I trust that they will move with high regard for the critical importance and urgency it deserves. To do otherwise will invite chaos at every level.

I do believe that IF the SCOTUS was to examine the facts and documents (i.e. vault BC) they would be able to make an informed decision.

I believe that the SC, or Congress, will HAVE to examine Mr. Obama's original birth certificate, as well as any other supporting documentation to put this thing to rest. Again - it will either be fully disclosed and decided to the satisfaction of the American people, or it will never die.

It's either put to rest fully, and I mean with complete disclosure of Obama's hidden past, or the doubts about him will grow into an untenable situation of mistrust and illegitimacy in the mind of the public, and even among members of our gov't and military.

360 posted on 12/04/2008 1:40:17 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 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