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 ... 741-760761-780781-800 ... 921-922 next last
To: Tublecane

Why has Congress tried 26 times since the 1870s to change that pesky “Natural Born Citizen” clause of the US Constitution, only to have it fail in committee — EVERYTIME?


761 posted on 12/06/2008 11:42:57 AM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 759 | View Replies]

To: BP2
Should the Supreme Court choose not to take up this issue, then the most authoritative definition of "natural born" rests with Senate Resolution 511.

There is no need to rehash past history since the Senate staffers already did that for us all. This Resolution is the most contemporary and authoritative determination of what "natural born citizen" means. Why argue history and law when the Senate has settled the issue for us all, determining in SR511 that "natural born" meant a person born of two American citizen parents and on American territory.

The Senate has spoken -- the issue is settled. There is no way around it. Let's make them stand by their own words and explain how Obama can be qualified for the Presidency given their proverbial wisdom in SR 511. He can't!!! and They can't!!!

762 posted on 12/06/2008 11:55:54 AM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 758 | View Replies]

To: calenel
A proven forgery (link on this thread).

BS.

763 posted on 12/06/2008 12:13:19 PM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 731 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
The United States Senate did just that last April in their well-researched Senate Resolution 511 which determined that John McCain was a "natural born" citizen because he met two important conditions: both parents were American citizens and he was born on American territory.

Not a lot of research needed to go into that, just a look at existing U.S. law. McCain was a natural born citizen not because he was born on U.S. territory - he was born on Panamanian soil - but because his father was in the military stationed overseas and both his parents were U.S. citizens who had lived in the United States for a number of years prior to his birth. He is just as much a natural born U.S. citizen as if he'd been born in New York or Washington. I do not dispute that at all. But likewise, if Obama was born in Hawaii then he, too, is a natural born U.S. citzen and eligible to be president. The nationality of his father, as the Supreme Court has found, is irrelevant.

Don't confuse me with Donofrio or his adherents.

764 posted on 12/06/2008 12:14:05 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 748 | View Replies]

To: BP2
AH, well, what part of the law says that Dual Citizenship, which is not currently recognized by the US, is "OKAY"?

Dual citizenship is recognized by the U.S., though not encouraged. They cannot outlaw it without conflicting with the laws of foreign countries. A child born in the U.S. is a natural born U.S. citizen. If the laws of another country also grants citizenship to the child then there is nothing the U.S. can or will do about it.

Stop playing games. This cutesy, revisionary, "the-Constitution-is-a-Living-Document" crap is going to get someone hurt!

No games, just a question. According to U.S. law and Supreme Court decisions, if Obama was born in Hawaii then he is a U.S. citizen at birth. How does that differ from natural born U.S. citizen and where is this difference defined?

765 posted on 12/06/2008 12:21:23 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 737 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
The nationality of his father, as the Supreme Court has found, is irrelevant.

How did the Senate staffers who researched it and the Senate that unanimously adopted the Resolution miss that???

766 posted on 12/06/2008 12:22:38 PM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 764 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
Are you serious? The phrase “the law of nations” is not unique to the title of Vatell’s book. It has long been in general usage, which is probably why Vatell picked it in the first place

Don't get yer knickers in a twist. I only said that the mention of the Law of Nations in the Constitution was "of particular interest".

I'm not a constitutional scholar, and I never suggested that the Congress should base our entire Constitution on this one historical treatise. I just said that the phrase was of interest.

The Framers were intelligent, deliberate, and possessed great vision, but they didn't craft a perfect Constitution. Look at how many times it's been amended. It's certain that their failure to closely define the phrase Natural Born Citizen was an unfortunate oversight (of magnitude) on their part.

I can forgive them for that oversight in light of the fact that in their day, these simple words did not need explaining to anyone. They communicated the Framers' intent precisely, and stood unquestioned, all on their own.

Only in the 21st century, have we come to a point where men cannot agree on the simple meanings of words any longer, and must parse and read into them things that were never intended by those who wrote them.

767 posted on 12/06/2008 12:26:16 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 692 | View Replies]

To: BonRad
British rights in the federalist papers

After reading about British rights in regards their claim to citizens and succeeding descendants through blood inheritance, I now realize that Mother England never fully accepted American Independence.

Now I understand the meaning behind the recurring practice of tracing blood lines to the British Crown of winning Presidents. Ever noticed with every ‘change’ of administration MSM reports, in various ways, an ancestor discovery of some sort? I saw this happen with Bill Clinton, G. Bush, and just recently I read a report of BHO and Cheney whose related with common ancestry.

When GW Bush was elected there was an entire News segment on an event in which the Queen took Bush on a personal tour of her vaulted books of genealogical records. The report was that the Queen was showing him their common ancestors who were related. NOW I UNDERSTAND WHY... as Mother England has always sought to blood tie herself through common descendants of America. The outcome was/is to secure allegiance and influence American leadership to eventually rule over her indirectly than possibly directly.

So ultimately Mother England finaly has her DIRECT blood tied Native son in BHO and it seems ‘they’ will have DIRECT rule over America. His role must have been a long plan in the making.

It's possible the Annenberg foundation, Ford foundations, and others have developed specific programs to GROW special individuals for Mother England's future use. Through indirect support of chosen children and family's it's possibly they helped support BHO since boyhood. Didn't BHO’s mother work for the Ford foundation? What about Walter Annenberg that foundations father? It turns Walter Annenberg was appointed under President Reagan as Ambassidor to the COURT OF ST. JAMES directly tied to Mother England.

768 posted on 12/06/2008 12:28:11 PM PST by Blu By U
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 751 | View Replies]

To: centurion316
I agree with you that this argument will not hold, but not because of the merits.

It will not hold because it is opinion, and opinion does not run this country. Laws do, the Constitution does, and the Supreme Court is tasked with interpreting the Constitution. Our laws do not differentiate between natural born citizen and citizen at birth. The Supreme Court says that with few exceptions children born in the U.S. are citizens at birth regardless of the nationality of their parents. Nothing in the Constitution itself conflicts with these interpretations. So Donofrio's claims hold no water. McCain is eligible to run for president because he is a natural born U.S. citizen, that status achieved through his parents. If Obama was born in Hawaii then he, too, is a natural born citizen and just as eligible to run for president, his father's nationality and dual citizenship regardless.

769 posted on 12/06/2008 12:32:20 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 750 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
How did the Senate staffers who researched it and the Senate that unanimously adopted the Resolution miss that???

Probably because it wasn't applicable, their resolution was dealing with McCain and not Obama. McCain's father and mother were U.S. citizens. McCain could have been born on Mars and according to U.S. law he would be a natural born U.S. citizen because of his parents.

But if they want to do a similar resolution about Obama then there are Supreme Court decisions they can quote from.

770 posted on 12/06/2008 12:37:40 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 766 | View Replies]

To: BP2
that would be a looser interpretation

The one time "looser" is used properly on this forum, when "loser" the most frequently (and granted, now intentionally misspelled word on the forum) would be more appropriate.

771 posted on 12/06/2008 12:43:32 PM PST by j_tull (Jeremiah Wright's prayer has been answered. God has damned America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

I was unaward that the Supreme Court had ruled on the meaning of natural born citizen as it is used in the Constitution.


772 posted on 12/06/2008 12:46:12 PM PST by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 769 | View Replies]

To: calenel
Where is your source for that? Don't just repeat.

Hello?

Are talking about the same issue??

Who is Hussein's father???

773 posted on 12/06/2008 12:47:06 PM PST by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 714 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
The added comma is significant because in today's newspaper English, comma's are often improperly used to set apart independent clauses. " or a citizen of the United States", is MOST assuredly NOT an independent clause in this sentence.
774 posted on 12/06/2008 12:48:11 PM PST by j_tull (Jeremiah Wright's prayer has been answered. God has damned America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: centurion316; Non-Sequitur

>>> I was unaware that the Supreme Court had ruled on the meaning of natural born citizen as it is used in the Constitution.

Haven't you heard? Non-Sequitur has a direct hotline to Danny Bickel's office. He's warning Bickel of the the 30 other suits headed toward the SCOTUS, regardless of what happens with Donofrio's case ...

"Danny, also tell 'Renegade' to be on standby with a REX 84 unit and EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 -- we have some rowdy Freepers over here." LOL


775 posted on 12/06/2008 1:43:18 PM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 772 | View Replies]

To: BP2

No doubt, but those are not decided cases.


776 posted on 12/06/2008 1:52:50 PM PST by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 775 | View Replies]

To: Blu By U; BP2

Cheers (as they say)!

I’m not going to search it now but do go find Cornwallis’ resignation of his sword to Washington wherein he said England would effectively, finally win back the colonies.
Its also not so rare to find a student of the Revolutionary War and masonry who claim the Brits conceded in erudite fashion. One who I can cite is Gerry Matatics, for those who may have encountered his name. I also point to the aging writer Solange Strong Hertz.

It was basically decided their plight was too much then, that the fledgling democratic Republic was simply too spirited (after all it set the pattern of governments for the next 200+ years) but would ultimately fail as an experiment. Francis Bacon and other masons had unloosed a foolish but long experiment that would have to eventually fail and would be reconciled to Mother England. In doing so the masons in leadership on either side either between themselves and/or at behest of controllers called it a day, but knew another day would come.

War of 1812 was 1st attempt to bring that day, there in the very same generation.

The insidious covert assertion of the hoped-for day of the “realm” via the UK Nationality Act of 1948 has in part played into the terrible dissembling of USA here, now. In significant part we have the Fabian Society’s long influence and let’s not forget Oxford and the Rhodes Scholarship: proto-Bam Bam - Slick (Black Prince) Willie.
The Clinton’s really paved the way through China, Indonesia and the Bank of Hawaii. The cincher comes via the randy Kenyan BHO Sr and his hyper-manipulative “son”, and the pending collapse of the financial system of varied Federal Reserves patterned after the Bank of (where else)England.

BTW, I have Irish roots. All eight great grandparents were born on the Emerald Isle. I agree as a Traditionalist Catholic that the Founders ultimately fail in at least as The Most Blessed Trinity is not cited in any reference of founding documents, as the original Irish Constitution had. Thus we have satanic groups sanctioned in prisons etc, troops in parts Middle East who can’t have outward display of Christian symbols etc. The above writers (Matatics especially) have it the English masons have US collapsing into its own. I support the US as it has a far superior Constitution and makeup. This country ostensibly (still??) at least allows the practice of my faith. Its not perfect but it suffices. Its solid enough to fight for. That’s my take. Oh, I was born here to two US-born parents and was raised to support the US.

The gremlins have managed through long effort to now pour through the cracks. We have a usurper. It’s inevitable as several founders and early commentators said without Christian morality underpinning etc etc....

God (as in the Most Holy Trinity) have Mercy!


777 posted on 12/06/2008 1:53:41 PM PST by BonRad (As Rome goes so goes the world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 768 | View Replies]

To: Blu By U
So ultimately Mother England finaly has her DIRECT blood tied Native son in BHO and it seems ‘they’ will have DIRECT rule over America. His role must have been a long plan in the making.

The stuff conspiracies are made of...

Interesting to think that all of Barack Obama Sr's (as well as the other family members') Kenyan records went into the UK's archive on Dec 12, 1963, when Kenya declared independence...


778 posted on 12/06/2008 1:59:32 PM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 768 | View Replies]

To: centurion316; BP2
I was unaward that the Supreme Court had ruled on the meaning of natural born citizen as it is used in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has ruled that a person born in the U.S. is a citizen at birth. Likewise a person born overseas of two parents who are U.S. citizens. If there is a difference between that and a natural born citizen then where is that difference defined? Where does the law detail three classifications of citizenship? Surely one of you can point so some authoritative source that gives that answer? Can't you?

779 posted on 12/06/2008 2:14:29 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 772 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; Tublecane; BP2

Enjoyed reading your thoughts and comments this afternoon, an interesting debate leading up to the coronation, oops, inauagaration of Mr. Obama. Unfortunately, I was supposed to be hanging drywall this afternoon.


780 posted on 12/06/2008 2:40:14 PM PST by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 769 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 741-760761-780781-800 ... 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