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 ... 561-580581-600601-620 ... 921-922 next last
To: danamco
those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States

But the laws of the United States (juris) control (diction) more than citizens.

You do not contend that the detention and deportation of illegal aliens, for example, is not an exercise of the jurisdiction of the United States?

It is of no significance what some dead guys once said about what XIV means. What counts is what it says.

If Barack Obama senior needed a visa to be in Hawaii, and had to register as all aliens did then, then he was most certainly "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" - or else why would he do those things?

581 posted on 12/05/2008 10:05:54 AM PST by Jim Noble (I have read a fiery gospel, writ in burnished rows of steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 579 | View Replies]

To: danamco
Secretary of State Bayard ruled under Section 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes in 1885 that although Richard Greisser was born in the United States, his father at the time of his birth was a subject of Germany, and thus, Richard Greisser could not be a citizen of the United States.

And SCOTUS ruled in the United States v. Wong Kim Ark that a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth. Neither of Ark's parents were US citizens. A SCOTUS decision overrides a decision by the SOS.

Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States.

This is one opinion, but it is overriden by the Constitution, Federal law and SCOTUS decisions.

A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father.

You're seriously going to rely on "the laws of nature?" Come on.

582 posted on 12/05/2008 10:06:03 AM PST by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 579 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade
So, once again, there are two types of citizens: naturalized citizens (who cannot serve as President) and citizens from birth (who can).

I see you have never bumped into the old-time patriot movement. If this thread keeps up, I expect sovereign state citizenship to come up.

Kinda surprised it hasn't already - most of those guys must be in jail for tax evasion.

583 posted on 12/05/2008 10:11:57 AM PST by Jim Noble (I have read a fiery gospel, writ in burnished rows of steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 580 | View Replies]

To: danamco

Thank you for posting this to Citizen Blade.

He is refusing to acknowledge that the 14th Amendment DEFINES the term ‘citizen of the United States’ as someone BORN or NATURALIZED in the United States AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

This would mean Arnold (Naturalized in the US AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof)

AND

This would mean Barack (BORN in the US AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof)

AND

This would mean Wonk Kim Ark (BORN in the US AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof)

NONE of them can be President because they are ALL ‘only’ citizens of the United States.

A citizen of the United States, regardless of how they came about their citizenship, can ONLY serve as Senator or Representative. Only a natural born citizen can be President.

If all THREE of those people, under different circumstances, are considered ‘citizens of the United States’ then NONE of them can be President.

Arnold can’t be President because he is naturalized. He is ONLY a US citizen.

Wong Kim Ark can’t be President because he was born on US soil to two foreign parents. He is ONLY a US citizen.

Barack Obama can’t be President because he was born on US soil to ONE foreign parent. He is ONLY a US citizen.

US citizens CANNOT be President.


584 posted on 12/05/2008 10:15:25 AM PST by wndawmn666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 579 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
I see you have never bumped into the old-time patriot movement. If this thread keeps up, I expect sovereign state citizenship to come up.

Ah, it's starting to make sense now. I couldn't figure out where these people were coming from. Thanks for the link.

Are these the same people who think that gold trim on a US flag in a courtroom means that the judge is presiding under admiralty law? I've also heard that they think lawyers who use "Esquire" after their name are violating the nobility clause of the Constitution.

585 posted on 12/05/2008 10:16:49 AM PST by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 583 | View Replies]

Wong Kim Ark was determined to be a ‘citizen of the United States’ as defined in the 14th Amendment. This is because he was born on US soil to two foreign parents.

Barack Obama is admittedly a ‘citizen of the United States’ as defined in the 14th Amendment. This is because he was born on US soil to ONE foreign parent.

Arnold is a ‘citizen of the United States’ as defined in the 14th Amendment because he was naturalized in the United States.

If Arnold can’t be President because he is ‘only’ a citizen of the United States, neither can Barack or Wong Kim Ark. They are also ‘only’ citizens of the United States.

ALL of them can be Senators or Representatives. NONE of them can be President.


586 posted on 12/05/2008 10:20:57 AM PST by wndawmn666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 584 | View Replies]

To: wndawmn666
He is refusing to acknowledge that the 14th Amendment DEFINES the term ‘citizen of the United States’ as someone BORN or NATURALIZED in the United States AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

You miss the point that the definition under the 14th Amendment is not exclusive. Someone can be a citizen (even a natural-born citizen) and not be born in the US or be naturalized. But, that's beside the point.

NONE of them can be President because they are ALL ‘only’ citizens of the United States.

Arnie is a naturalized citizen, so he cannot be President. Obama and Ark were citizens at birth, so they can. Pretty simple, actually.

A naturalized citizen of the United States, regardless of how they came about their citizenship, can ONLY serve as Senator or Representative. Only a natural born citizen can be President.

Fixed your statement to make it correct.

Wong Kim Ark can’t be President because he was born on US soil to two foreign parents. He is ONLY a US citizen.

Barack Obama can’t be President because he was born on US soil to ONE foreign parent. He is ONLY a US citizen.

Can you show where your claims are supported in the Constitution, Federal law or case law?

587 posted on 12/05/2008 10:24:32 AM PST by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 584 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade

Barack Obama is afforded the same ‘type’ of citizenship as Wong Kim Ark and as Arnold.

They are all recognized as citizens of the United States.

There are two types of citizens recognized in the Constituion:

Natural born citizens of the US (can be President)
Citizens of the US (cannot be President)

This is quote from FactCheck.org:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children”

Read the last line. THAT SAME ACT GOVERNED THE STATUS OF OBAMA SR.’S CHILDREN’. Barack Obama Sr.’s children were GOVERNED by the British Nationality Act of 1948.

Barack was born a citizen of the United States and a citizen of the United Kingdom.

He is NOT a natural born citizen.


588 posted on 12/05/2008 10:32:22 AM PST by wndawmn666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 587 | View Replies]

To: wndawmn666
They are all recognized as citizens of the United States.

Sure, but Arnie is a naturalized citizen, and he can't be President. The other two are natural-born citizens and can.

Barack was born a citizen of the United States and a citizen of the United Kingdom.

Sure. So what? Dual citizenship is not a bar to the Presidency under the Constitution or under US law.

589 posted on 12/05/2008 10:39:06 AM PST by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 588 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade

No, Arnie is not a ‘naturalized citizen’. He is a citizen of the United States BECAUSE he was naturalized.

Please read the 14th Amendment. It does not define NATURALIZED citizens. It defines CITIZENS of the United States.

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.

This means all persons BORN in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof (Obama, Wong Kim Ark,)

AND

This means all persons NATURALIZED in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof (Arnold)

The Constitution recognizes TWO types of Citizens:

(1) Natural born citizens of the United States (President)
(2) Citizens of the United States (Not President)


590 posted on 12/05/2008 10:45:43 AM PST by wndawmn666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 589 | View Replies]

To: wndawmn666
No, Arnie is not a ‘naturalized citizen’. He is a citizen of the United States BECAUSE he was naturalized.

What's the difference?

Please read the 14th Amendment. It does not define NATURALIZED citizens. It defines CITIZENS of the United States.

I agree. What's your point?

The Constitution recognizes TWO types of Citizens:

Sure- naturalized citizens (who cannot be President) and citizens from birth/natural-born citizens (who can). Both types qualify as citizens of the United States, but naturalized citizens cannot serve as President.

591 posted on 12/05/2008 10:49:31 AM PST by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 590 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade

Man, are you thick headed. :-)

There is no such thing as a ‘naturalized citizen’. A person that comes here and is naturalized is considered a citizen of the United States. Again, please read the 14th Amendment. It does not say naturalized citizen. It says one who is naturalized is a citizen of the United States.

Wong Kim Ark is also a citizen of the United States. This is because he was born on US soil to TWO foreign parents.

Barack Obama is also a citizen of the United States. This is because he was born on US soil to ONE foreign parent.

NONE of them can be President.


592 posted on 12/05/2008 10:55:37 AM PST by wndawmn666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 591 | View Replies]

The Constitution doesn’t say that ‘naturalized citizens’ cannot be President.

It says ‘citizens of the United States’ cannot be President.

How does one become a ‘citizen of the United States’?

Read the 14th Amendment...


593 posted on 12/05/2008 10:56:56 AM PST by wndawmn666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 592 | View Replies]

To: wndawmn666
There is no such thing as a ‘naturalized citizen’

Sure there is. I am one, for example. Certainly, I'm a citizen on eqaul footing with natural-born citizens (other than the Presidency issue), but I am a naturalized citizen. It is nothing more than a definitional term.

NONE of them can be President.

Show me where it says this in the COTUS, Federal law or case law.

594 posted on 12/05/2008 11:12:46 AM PST by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 592 | View Replies]

To: wndawmn666
It says ‘citizens of the United States’ cannot be President.

The Constitution says no such thing.

How does one become a ‘citizen of the United States’?

Either by being a citizen at birth or through the naturalization process. Anyone who falls into the first category qualifies for the Presidency.

595 posted on 12/05/2008 11:14:54 AM PST by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 593 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade

Citizen Blade,

The 14th Amendment defines ONE type of citizen and that is a ‘citizen of the United States’.

Under the 14th Amendment you are a CITIZEN of the United States because you were naturalized.

The 14th Amendment doesn’t define you as a naturalized citizen. It defines you as a citizen of the United States.

Wong Kim Ark is also a citizen of the United States

Barack Obama is also a citizen of the United States

NONE of you can be President.


596 posted on 12/05/2008 11:16:36 AM PST by wndawmn666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 594 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade

Yes, it does say such thing. Unless, of course, your Constitution says something other than everyone elses.

“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;”

Unless Barack Obama was alive when the Constitution was adopted, he cannot be President. He is ONLY a citizen of the United States.


597 posted on 12/05/2008 11:18:52 AM PST by wndawmn666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 595 | View Replies]

To: wndawmn666
NONE of you can be President.

You keep saying that. Can you show me where COTUS, Federal law or case law supports your claims that someone born in the US to one or two foreign parents, cannot be President?

598 posted on 12/05/2008 11:20:18 AM PST by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 596 | View Replies]

To: dandiegirl
Obama is an arrogant punk and gets what he deserves.

Indeed he is an arrogant punk, but I fear he may not get what he deserves. However, as in the case of O.J.Simpson today, justice may catch up with him eventually.

599 posted on 12/05/2008 11:21:37 AM PST by Churchillspirit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 528 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade

No, anyone that is merely BORN in the US cannot be President.


600 posted on 12/05/2008 11:23:53 AM PST by wndawmn666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 595 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 561-580581-600601-620 ... 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