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 ... 441-460461-480481-500 ... 921-922 next last
To: wndawmn666
Allegiance of the parents most certainly mattered since they were responsible for the child.
What if two anti-American citizens from another country wanted to hatch a master plan to take over the USA.
By the logic used by some posters, these two anti-Americans could:
1. Plan a trip to America and make sure the woman gave birth on US soil.
2. Take said child out of the US and raise said child in an anti-American way.
3. Make sure said child is back in the US by age 21 so he/she can meet the 14 year residency requirement when he/she turns 35.
This person could then be eligible to serve as our President.

Sounds eerily familiar doesn't it! Sounds just like Obama's family right from the grandparents, mother, father, very scary thought! He did also attend school in Indonesia and studied their faith.
461 posted on 12/04/2008 4:36:38 PM PST by jcsjcm (Upholding the Constitution til my last breath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 456 | View Replies]

To: Cincinna

Tell that to the Framers.

That preposterous hypothetical is exactly what they were protecting this nation from when they made that special requirement.

They had just finished fighting with the British. The LAST thing they wanted was for British citizens to be able to have a child on US soil and have that child RUN the country, particularly the military, some day.

These men wanted nothing but 100% allegiance to the United States AT BIRTH. Pretty smart, weren’t they. This qualification is determined AT BIRTH and nothing matters after that. Natural ‘BORN’. Not natural ‘when you’re running for office’.

That is what natural born is. It’s about ALLEGIANCE upon birth. You either have it or you don’t. When you are BORN to a US citizen and a UK citizen, you are not a natural BORN citizen of the United States. You are a citizen.

Yes, there is a difference. Any old citizen can be a Senator or Representative but it takes a special kind of citizen to be President. That would be one born with 100% allegiance to the United States of America.


462 posted on 12/04/2008 4:40:33 PM PST by wndawmn666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 459 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

‘First class Americans’ and ‘second class Americans’ are your words. If I marry a foreigner, and have children, I cannot expect my children to be eligible for the Presidency (as I understand the Founders’ intention.) Now, if I want my children to have a chance at becoming the President, then, I had better marry a US citizen, or, effect a change in the Constitution by way of an Amendment.


463 posted on 12/04/2008 4:40:46 PM PST by freepersup (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 458 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade; calenel; montesquiue; Non-Sequitur; flaglady47; Newtiebacker; GBA; so_real; ...

Here's a scenario for those of you who are afraid to “rock the boat”:

Obama moves on to be sworn in on Jan. 20, 2009. All current efforts to demand a more diligent vetting of his eligibility are fruitless -- the "powers" in Washington quietly and collectively decided to give Obama a "pass." They do this because they feel calling him illegitimate, and ordering new elections, might cause a break down overseas and domestically. We don’t want riots, right? Our nation's never survived riots...

Months later, foreign intelligence agencies, either from our enemies or countries who profit from the downfall of the US, start leaking documents that we have been seeking for months now. Documents they've had all along. "Birth certificates," copies of Indonesian school records, travel manifests, passport records, etc, are released to the UN and other nations.

Domestically, it sets off a chain reaction in the US. Citizens, still stinging from the economy, call for a referendum or demand resignation. "Red states," particularly those in the south, openly discuss seceding for political and economic reasons.

Financially, we sink even further in the world economy, with the stability of our government in question. The US dollar is worthless and our diplomacy is ineffective because legitimacy of our government is very much in doubt. Our current allies offer no support, for fear of being ostracized and losing what little international trading exists because of the world economic crisis.

Militarily, our soldiers are hesitant to act for fear that killing foreign combatants might expose them, individually, to war crimes because they are considered to be under the command of an illegitimate head of state.

Sound to crazy to happen? Really??!

Let's pray that our leaders and guided by wisdom in their decisions over the next several weeks. There's a lot at stake if they're wrong...


464 posted on 12/04/2008 4:45:47 PM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 407 | View Replies]

To: wndawmn666

Your FReeper name troubles me. Why the satanic numbers?

Infants and children do not have allegiances. They have citizenship rights if they are born on US oil. They are a citizen if they are born in the US.

I don’t see how it could be any clearer.


465 posted on 12/04/2008 4:47:38 PM PST by Cincinna (TIME TO REBUILD * JINDAL* PALIN * CANTOR 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 462 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
I have a problem with dual citizenship.

One should owe allegiance to only one country, IMO
(probably a generational thing on my part)

466 posted on 12/04/2008 4:47:40 PM PST by elpadre (nation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Barack Obama on Clarence Thomas

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=KfblJvKXiP0


467 posted on 12/04/2008 4:47:59 PM PST by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
...but the fact is, that statement comports with the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution.

>>> "OK, so point out where they defined the difference." <<<

Perhaps this comment I found (below) on Leo Donofrio's Natural Born Citizen blog will help. It contains a case reference which may also shed some light on this, as well as a quote from former Chief Justice William Rehnquist:

>>> "Historians need to help here. Remember, Congress was given the authority to regulate naturalization. It was the time of the French Revolution. Napoleon would soon be Emperor of France. It was his Napoleonic Code that would make citizenship by “blood” or “descent” the law of all Europe (except Great Britain, although by 1860, Great Britain would begin to adopt “descent,” and did so fully by 1948)

In the U.S., Africans were slaves, persons held as property. Africans were American-born, but NOT citizens.

In 1866, the Civil Rights Act made new freemen “citizens,” not by “naturalization,” because they were not “foreigners,” but by appeal to the “natural-born” clause in Article II as the qualification to be President of the United States. It was the discussion of citizenship in United States v. Rhodes, 27 F. Cas. 785, at 790 (1866) that confirmed the logic of this decision: “If born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then a citizen.”

Justice Rehnquist (before he became Chief Justice) pointed out that there were 11 instances in the Constitution — “a document noted for its brevity” — that address the “citizen-alien” distinction.

Clearly, this matter was vitally important to the Framers, and to every Court and Congress since. It will be important in this case, too." <<<

468 posted on 12/04/2008 4:55:46 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 433 | View Replies]

To: Cincinna

I would be STUNNED if the birth certificate in your safety deposit bank was the original document signed by the doctor — that’s going to permanently be in the possession of the clerk’s office in the town/county/state where you were born.

I believe he produced the birth certificate that the state would give any Hawaiian-born person who requested a copy of theirs.


469 posted on 12/04/2008 4:58:14 PM PST by kenboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 457 | View Replies]

To: Cincinna

A natural ‘born’ citizen. This is determined at BIRTH, hence the term ‘natural born’. Children inherit their parents allegiance(s) by birth. They don’t need to make a decision. It is decided for them.

Again, one of the requirements is being a natural BORN citizen. Allegiance matters not when you are running for President. It matters at birth and this is determined by the parents.

My children are Americans by way of me and my husband. They don’t get a say in the matter. Sure, they can denounce their allegiance if they some day desire but that will never take away the fact that they were Americans at birth via me and their dad.


470 posted on 12/04/2008 4:58:35 PM PST by wndawmn666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 465 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216

The copy oin the net was an admitted forgery ... the two guys were exposed and had to admit it. That was the copy posted at Obama’s website, and the same document’ upon which Fcatcheck based their assertions. Factcheck even tried to fold their color coy and pretend it was a copy from Hawai’i.


471 posted on 12/04/2008 5:00:44 PM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: wndawmn666

This is a great comment, except for the part where it’s utterly wrong and ignores the common law interpretation of “natural born citizen” as it existed in 1787.

One good explanation:
http://volokh.com/posts/1204265246.shtml


472 posted on 12/04/2008 5:00:49 PM PST by kenboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 462 | View Replies]

To: Campion
We have no proof that he was born on US soil. We have what is alleged to be a certified Hawaiian COLB printed on a laser printer sometime around 2007. Where is the original vault copy? Where is the attending physician's signature? If the attending physician is still alive, where is his attestation that that his signature?

I agree with every word. Common horse sense ought to tell everyone that Obama is stonewalling for reasons that cannot be good. He's got nothing to gain, and everything to lose by his continued refusal to release his records.

Where there is smoke, there is fire. Obama is hiding something much worse than merely embarrassing details of his life. He's guilty of something.

473 posted on 12/04/2008 5:03:04 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 437 | View Replies]

To: BP2; Calpernia; Fred Nerks; null and void; pissant; george76; PhilDragoo; Candor7; MeekOneGOP; ...

Thanks, BP2. This is the stuff nightmares are made of / of
which nightmares are made.

Ping.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2142619/posts?page=464#464


474 posted on 12/04/2008 5:04:41 PM PST by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 464 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
Clearly, this matter was vitally important to the Framers, and to every Court and Congress since. It will be important in this case, too.

Doesn't help at all, in fact it ignores the question. The important matter is how one defines the difference, if difference there be, between citizen at birth and natural born citizen. I understand the difference between a person born a citizen of the U.S. and someone naturalized as a citizen. I do not understand where the distinction between citizen at birth, the term used by U.S. law and Supreme Court decisions, and natural borth citizen is defined. The Constitution doesn't do it. What does?

475 posted on 12/04/2008 5:06:58 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 468 | View Replies]

To: ~Vor~
Yes, he did...and treated Justice Thomas quite nasty as I remember. Biden along with “Splash” Kennedy were the 2 worst on the committee.

Are you referring to "The Hero of Chappaquiddick"?

476 posted on 12/04/2008 5:09:11 PM PST by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: kenboy

What Obamanation put up on his own website is an admitted forgery. The two who forged it have said so. Stop genuflecting to this fraudulent affirmative action wannabe seeking to extort the job from We The People.


477 posted on 12/04/2008 5:09:53 PM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 469 | View Replies]

To: BP2; LucyT; All

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hS-J20T6EqE

This seems to fit...


478 posted on 12/04/2008 5:11:03 PM PST by 1COUNTER-MORTER-68 (THROWING ANOTHER BULLET-RIDDLED TV IN THE PILE OUT BACK~~~~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 464 | View Replies]

To: BP2

I’ve presented a similar scenario as yours in some of my posts, in an attempt to get people to see the larger implications of what is happening here.

We’ve gone beyond simply compelling Obama to prove his basic qualifications for the office of President, although that is what is at the heart of the matter.

Obama has now stonewalled for so long, that he has created the undeniable impression and suspicion that there is definitely something afoot, and that he is withholding something of terrible import from us.

A person in his position should have been eager and forthright in their efforts to dispel any rumors of their ineligibility, and should have made at least their public records an open book to the public by now. But Mr. Obama has systematically closed off the scrutiny of his past, by blocking access to every public record that he has any control over.

This is a Red Flag of alarm.

The fact that nothing is known about this man, besides the tale that he himself has spun for us, should make every thinking American nervous.


479 posted on 12/04/2008 5:12:40 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 464 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Oh, OK, you’re absolutely right.

Enjoy your tin foil hat.


480 posted on 12/04/2008 5:13:30 PM PST by kenboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 477 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460461-480481-500 ... 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