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 ... 501-520521-540541-560 ... 921-922 next last
To: little jeremiah
Who is backing and financing 0bama? Who is mentoring him? Who gives him advice?

What can be said about that, is, of the associations and alliances that we do know of, none of them are of good character, or are anything but far left-wing.

The man is absolutely surrounded by people and organizations of the most extreme sort. I can't think of one benign organization or person of any prominence that he's connected with.

521 posted on 12/04/2008 7:13:06 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 516 | View Replies]

To: jcsjcm

“Elg was only considered a citizen, not natural born since one of her parents was still a foreign citizen.”

They didn’t discuss whether she was “natural born” or not, so fdar as I read. The issue at stake was simply whether or not she was a citizen.

“I think it is very difficult for us as laymen to really determine what the founders meant, but they did state natural born to US citizens (plural) which only could mean both parents.”

Where did they state that? i don’t remember it being in the Constitution.


522 posted on 12/04/2008 7:16:16 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 450 | View Replies]

To: elpadre

“I have a problem with dual citizenship.”

That’s your perogative. Personally, I don’t think I could shirk off an entire half of my lineage, or not so easily as Obama shirked off his whiteness (according to his biography).


523 posted on 12/04/2008 7:18:02 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 466 | View Replies]

To: danamco

“I and Hussein are NOT ‘natural’ born, which requires that the two (2) parents, (father and mother) both are U.S. citizen.”

Where does it say that? Again, I am only aware of two types of citizens: natural born and naturalized. If there is a third type, why on earth would they refer to the process of making people citizens as “naturalization” (i.e. “making natural”)? The fact that we call new citizens “naturalized” implies to me that all the citizens who don’t have to be naturalized are natural born citizens.


524 posted on 12/04/2008 7:22:50 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 486 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
Why do you keep using the term “second class citizen”? They would have all the privilege and freedom as any other citizen. Just cannot hold the office of president or vice president, which asks for single allegiance. Don't try to make this a “class” thing.
525 posted on 12/04/2008 7:29:21 PM PST by Marmolade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; SunkenCiv

Clarence Thomas High-Tech Lynching

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=egTyaIAaqz8&feature=related


526 posted on 12/04/2008 7:30:58 PM PST by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

Thanks FN!


527 posted on 12/04/2008 7:49:31 PM PST by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/_______Profile finally updated Saturday, October 11, 2008 !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 526 | View Replies]

To: Churchillspirit

Obama dismissed Thomas as not being smart enough to be on the Supreme Court. I believe he did this during a debate or that Saddleback forum. Obama is an arrogant punk and gets what he deserves.


528 posted on 12/04/2008 7:59:27 PM PST by dandiegirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: NeoConfederate

“Good on Justice Thomas. I know some people don’t like him because he doesn’t look like all the other Justices...”

Sorry, but n00bies have to use sarcasm tags. Rules are rules.


529 posted on 12/04/2008 8:01:54 PM PST by Balata (Truth surfaces when FReeRepublic is engaged.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 497 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

I suppose that is why lots of us would like to see what the high court has to say on the matter.


530 posted on 12/04/2008 8:06:23 PM PST by SerafinQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 495 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

And did that immigrant mother apply for citizenship or does she continue to hold citizenship in another country?


531 posted on 12/04/2008 8:26:55 PM PST by Marmolade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]

Fact: We know that the Framers recognized a difference between US citizens and natural born citizens.

We don’t need to look FOR the definition of natural born citizen. We need to be looking AT the definition of a US citizen (which would be what is required to serve as Senator or Representative but isn’t quite enough to let one serve as President).

14th Amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This gives the SAME type of citizenship to those who are either:

1. BORN in the United States

OR

2. NATURALIZED in the United States

A child BORN on US soil (think Wong Kim Ark) receives the same type of citizenship as someone that is naturalized.

Either of the could serve in the Senate or House but NEITHER can serve as President because they are only citizens. Not natural born citizens. They receive the same type of citizenship in two different ways.


532 posted on 12/04/2008 8:29:17 PM PST by wndawmn666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 490 | View Replies]

I tried to post this awhile ago but it didn’t go through. I have added further clarification at the bottom.

Fact: We know that the Framers recognized a difference between US citizens and natural born citizens.

We don’t need to look FOR the definition of natural born citizen.

We need to be looking AT the definition of a US citizen (which would be what is required to serve as Senator or Representative but isn’t quite enough to let one serve as President).

14th Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This gives the SAME type of citizenship to those who are either:

1. BORN in the United States

OR

2. NATURALIZED in the United States

A child BORN on US soil receives the SAME type of citizenship as someone that is naturalized. There are three ways to achieve the label of ‘citizen of the United States’.

A child BORN on US soil to two foreign parents is a citizen of the United States.

A child BORN on US soil to one foreign parent and one US citizen is a citizen of the United States.

A person naturalized in the United States is a citizen of the United States.

All Citizens of the United States can serve as Senators and Representatives. They cannot serve as President. Citizens under the 14th amendment cannot be President. They all have the SAME type of citizenship.

So, now that we’ve figured out who CAN’T be President, who is left that CAN?

A person with two US citizens as parents.


533 posted on 12/04/2008 8:31:08 PM PST by wndawmn666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 517 | View Replies]

14th Amendment citizens (aka citizens of the United States) cannot be President.

Citizenship under the 14th Amendment is achieved in three ways:

1. Being naturalized
2. Being born on US soil to two non US citizens
3. Being born on US soil to one US citizen and one non US citizen

If Arnold can’t serve because of #1 then neither can anyone that falls under #s 2 or 3. Barry is a #3.


534 posted on 12/04/2008 8:31:09 PM PST by wndawmn666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

14th Amendment citizens cannot be President. Barack Obama’s campaign has stated he’s a citizen under the 14th Amendment.

Citizenship under the 14th Amendment is achieved in three ways:

1. Being naturalized
2. Being born on US soil to two non US citizens
3. Being born on US soil to one US citizen and one non US citizen

If Arnold can’t serve because of #1 then neither can anyone that falls under #s 2 or 3. Barry is a #3.


535 posted on 12/04/2008 8:31:09 PM PST by wndawmn666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 527 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

That’s your perogative. Personally, I don’t think I could shirk off an entire half of my lineage


That is why it is of utmost importance that the president has only a singe allegiance/citizenship. What would happen if a decision had to be made between the “other country” and the U.S.? Knowing there was allegiance to both countries would affect the decision being made. One might be hesitant to make a decision which could impact the other country negatively if there are still connections there and do harm to our country.


536 posted on 12/04/2008 8:54:40 PM PST by Marmolade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 523 | View Replies]

Sorry about all the posts! :-(


537 posted on 12/04/2008 8:59:34 PM PST by wndawmn666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 536 | View Replies]

To: wndawmn666

Thank you for your well thought out explanation. I was seriously considering shooting my monitor in the same vein as what Elvis did... the over abundance of devil’s advocates >>> here at FR <<< with the demand for proof as to where natural born citizen is defined explicitly and further etched in granite within the Constitution, makes me want to pull my hair out. One way of saying it is that; some meanings have to be, seemingly ‘reverse engineered’ to get the Founders’ full intentions, and there in lies the crux of the matter. I am bailing out... off to the showers. Good night all! ;o)


538 posted on 12/04/2008 9:15:38 PM PST by freepersup (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 533 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
This case will not win because the Supreme Court will recognize that the separation of powers concept prohibits them from stepping in.

And this is different from 2000 when the Gore campaign wanted to cherry-pick the counties to be re-counted. That was an equal protection argument which, contrary to what the left wants people to believe, passed 7-2 by the Nine.

539 posted on 12/04/2008 9:23:32 PM PST by CaptRon (Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wndawmn666

For those who haven't actually seen it, here's a copy of the famous letter from John Jay to George Washington during the Constitutional Convention where he suggests the President be a natural born Citizen.

Notice how John Jay has highlighted the word "born". On the Constitutional drafts, he underlines "born" in all instances.


540 posted on 12/04/2008 9:53:27 PM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 533 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560 ... 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