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 ... 481-500501-520521-540 ... 921-922 next last
To: Windflier

Considering Obama’s only claim of expertise is in community organizing and specializing in Constitutional Law, I do not feel his stonewalling the issue does anything to promote forthright harmony where communal adversity exists.


501 posted on 12/04/2008 6:16:29 PM PST by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 479 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216

Excellent fix, Jim. Thanks.


502 posted on 12/04/2008 6:17:06 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 376 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

Let me repost a portion of the FAM from earlier:

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 ...


503 posted on 12/04/2008 6:17:23 PM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 495 | View Replies]

To: BP2

For later


504 posted on 12/04/2008 6:24:09 PM PST by Shady Ray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 503 | View Replies]

To: TChris

> For the gazillionth time... The Constitution requires
> that the President be a Natural born citizen, not just a
> citizen.

Even if both Teh Won’s parents were 3 eyed aliens from the planet Zork and had just landed in Hawaii moments before his birth, he would still be a natural born US citizen.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp


505 posted on 12/04/2008 6:24:33 PM PST by cacoethes_resipisco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BP2

Oh, Leo Donofrio is on RIGHT NOW (at 823 pm CST) on http://www.plainsradio.com/chat.html


506 posted on 12/04/2008 6:24:47 PM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 503 | View Replies]

To: BP2

If this was from API I could believe this would go somewhere.


507 posted on 12/04/2008 6:28:23 PM PST by A CA Guy ( God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
Considering Obama’s only claim of expertise is in community organizing and specializing in Constitutional Law, I do not feel his stonewalling the issue does anything to promote forthright harmony where communal adversity exists.

This fact is especially troubling, and bodes ill for what type of person this man is, and whether he has the intestinal fortitude, the education, experience, or sense of ethics to actually execute the duties of President at all.

Naturally, I'm saying that from an analytical perspective. From everything I've seen and heard from this man, he is far out of his depth, and should have never even been considered for candidacy to the office. It's a damning testament to how incredibly debased the entire Democrat party has become.

Certainly, a "constitutional scholar" understands the deep implications of withholding the one document which might validate his claimed eligibility for office, especially in light of the fact that he is being challenged to come forth with this very thing in courts across the land.

Surely a "scholar" and "statesman" of Obama's reputed brilliance can readily grasp that he is causing a great many Americans to distrust his motives, and to suspect him of some sort of malevolence, by his stonewalling the release of his birth certificate and other records.

You'd think that a man who could reach the pinnacle of political power would recognize that he himself is creating the very controversy that may result in the perception of illegitimacy in the minds of the people.

This begs the question yet again: who is Barack Obama?

508 posted on 12/04/2008 6:30:38 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 501 | View Replies]

To: Windflier; All
Excellent post.

In addition Obama is so slick he and Axelrod have obviously gone on a campaign of trying to appease everyone on our side as much as possible and as quickly as possible. He called ros Lehtinen to get her take on Cuba! Now what the hell do you expect she will say! It's all BS! He already knows! It's all gathering support! Turfing enemies, turfing his way to success.

They know the proverbial caca will hit the fan sooner or later and they want everyone possible to be of the mindset of:

oh isn't he such a nice guy, shouldn't we just overlook all this obvious racial bias by the hard right

That's how they will turf all this(sore losers) and make no mistake these guys, obama/alxelrod, never stop astrouturfing, ever, even for a moment--it's their all.

They try their best to create allusions,mindsets in peoples minds of anything they want to brainwash within a certain group and through the use of lots of dough, computers and in obamas case now, personal phone calls to anyone who can advance his cause.

They will BS their way to victory.

It's all he knows,and all they have ever done. Works well.Theme and diversion.

It's slick stuff and he has been getting away with it for as long as anyone knows.

They hide everything. anything that will hurt his cause and lie about anything and everything and create allusions "turfing" their way through the really hard stuff like not having a true BC.

It's the old saw that rats fall back on so often. Ask them a straight question and get a completely different answer. They have been getting away with this BS forever.And this will be the final coup.

No one will no the true Obama until he is sworn in,then all bets are off.

509 posted on 12/04/2008 6:33:37 PM PST by rodguy911 (HOME OF THE FREE BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE--GO SARAHCUDA !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 479 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks; Ernest_at_the_Beach

Thanks!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2142619/posts?page=309#309
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2142619/posts?page=333#333
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2142619/posts?page=467#467


510 posted on 12/04/2008 6:35:49 PM PST by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/_______Profile finally updated Saturday, October 11, 2008 !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 467 | View Replies]

To: BP2
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.

I have come to the conclusion, that this is what they will have to do, in order to make a valid determination of what the Framers meant by Natural Born Citizen in the Constitution.

And, until Barry Obama shows up with some documentary evidence, we won't know how this will affect him. He's playing a waiting game with this, which does not bode well for his real status. The longer he stonewalls, the deeper the public suspicion about him.

511 posted on 12/04/2008 6:38:55 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 503 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

Freepers! Please ping all your friends to listen to Joe Thunder and Leo Donofrio on Plains Radio now!
http://www.plainsradio.com/


512 posted on 12/04/2008 6:38:57 PM PST by seekthetruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 500 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93
As you know, Obama has never shown any bona fide documentation that he was born on US soil.

He never will. It probably does not exist.

No telling what he fabricated when he went to Hawaii with all those other lawyers.

This guy is slick and will have every base covered several times.

I fully expect him to be very polite to the Supremes but bottom line is he will give them nothing incriminating. He is too smart for that.

Following that path he can probably BS his way into the presidency using everyone he has been blowing smoke at, the DBM, with massive public opinion on his side and a bunch of loud mouths he will probably get in.

Once in office it would take a proverbial act of Congress to get him out.

513 posted on 12/04/2008 6:41:59 PM PST by rodguy911 (HOME OF THE FREE BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE--GO SARAHCUDA !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 487 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
I don’t know about the two parents part. I always thought being born on U.S. soil was enough. I mean, children born on U.S. soil are citizens, right? And if they’re citizens at the time they’re born, I’m pretty sure that means they’re natural born citizens.

I understand. We're all troubled by the lack of clarity about US definitions (or lack thereof) regarding the exact classifications of US citizenship.

It's my opinion that the case of Barack Obama has brought this festering murkiness to the surface, and now it will have to be fully confronted and defined by the US Supreme Court.

It's my guess that they will consult The Federalist Papers, Black's Commentaries, and other historical writings to determine the intentions of the Framers for using that exact phrase, and what they meant by it.

514 posted on 12/04/2008 6:51:44 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 374 | 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.

If the high court decides that the phrase Natural Born Citizen comports with the historical meaning that a person takes their citizenship and loyalty from their father, then it won't matter where Obama was born.

The historical understanding of that phrase also includes the concept that a person who is born within the territorial jurisdiction of "the King" is by birth, a citizen of the realm, their father's citizenship being a qualifier.

The Donofrio case contends that Obama cannot be a US citizen, yet alone a Natural Born Citizen, because his father was a Kenyan national with British citizenship at the time of his birth.

515 posted on 12/04/2008 7:00:03 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: Windflier

The other question it begs:

Who is backing and financing 0bama? Who is mentoring him? Who gives him advice?


516 posted on 12/04/2008 7:02:10 PM PST by little jeremiah (Leave illusion, come to the truth. Leave the darkness, come to the light.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 508 | View Replies]

And who will be blackmailing him (if they aren’t already)?


517 posted on 12/04/2008 7:04:52 PM PST by little jeremiah (Leave illusion, come to the truth. Leave the darkness, come to the light.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 516 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

“Doesn’t sound very American, does it? Because it’s not.”

That’s an exhageration. American exceptionalism has a limit. We do have class distinctions, and always will. Like I said before, married people form a seperate class from singles, as do children from adults. There are all sorts of licenses given out by state, local, and federal agencies granting people certain privileges, from practicing medicine to fishing. There are net tax payers and net tax receivers, who John C. Calhoun warned us would eventually form seperate classes. In the face of all this, the presidency is such a small thing.

By the way, I am not among those who believes that children born on American soil aren’t necessarily natural born citizens. Everything I’ve ever read tells me they are.


518 posted on 12/04/2008 7:07:42 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]

To: jcsjcm

“Elg was not a natural born citizen...1 foreigner parent (Sweden) and 1 US citizen parent (naturalized by US statute) and Born in Brooklyn, NY (USA)...This is not in my words - this was the case! She was considered a citizen!”

Please explain to me how she can be considered an American citizen by virtue of her birth in the U.S., but not a natural born citizen? Are you among those who maintains that in order to be a natural born citizen you have to have two citizen parents? If so, please tell me what law defines natural born status as such. ‘Cause I couldn’t find anything in that case that said so.


519 posted on 12/04/2008 7:12:04 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 447 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

Don’t go bringing common sense into one of these threads. It can only end in tears.


520 posted on 12/04/2008 7:12:35 PM PST by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 481-500501-520521-540 ... 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