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 ... 801-820821-840841-860 ... 921-922 next last
To: BonRad
"that what you refer to as generally referring to 1790 had in fact DROPPED “NATURAL BORN” in near-same reference. Donofrio is certainly aware of the later acts you cite and here you’ve even so shown the term “natural born” has not re-appeared."

It has been acknowledged that the term 'natural born' was dropped in the 1795 law. But, tell me, what is the difference between 'natural born' and 'born...citizens'? My view, based on the dictionary definition of 'natural born' ('having a quality or status from birth') is that there is no difference.

To clarify, I cite the 1790 statute to refute the 'original intent' argument, as that 'natural born citizens' statute was written by a Congress that included FFs and signed by Washington (that guy on the dollar) (well, most of the time - I have a Tedy Bruschi dollar, too).

"P.A. Madison (whoever this is and who cares) has quite rightly shown the War of 1812 was essentially fought over British application of its nefarious claim upon so-called “British” (first and one must assume some SECOND generation ex-colonials, looking at this from the Limey claim) sons in enforced conscription of some 6000 in the naval blockade that triggered the war. It can be thus assumed the issue was considered settled with the last act prior to the war and did not need to be repeated in any act subsequent."

Who P.A. Madison is is relevant as he is being repeatedly cited as an expert, yet, we know nothing about him or his credentials, and I have previously illustrated flaws in his arguments on this very thread. Suppose I were to post my analysis on a site and sign my articles 'P.I.Jefferson' and some of the FReepers on this (and other) threads were to cite my site, perhaps even me, would that in and of itself validate my position on the topic? Just because it is on the internet does not make it the truth.

We are debating an idea that is fundamental to Donofrio's case, that there is a class of citizen 'born a citizen but not a natural born citizen'. I find this to be a serious - read fatal - flaw in Donofrio's case as there is no basis in Law or in the COTUS to support this argument. People who WANT it to be true have repeated their convoluted arguments ad nauseam, apparently believing that enough repetition will MAKE it true. It won't. When someone shows me I am wrong I will acknowledge it. I have, on this very topic, as my original position was that the question of Obama's citizenship was silly. But until there is some legitimate evidence that I am wrong, and not just the alternation of words that are synonymous, I will maintain that it is a distinction without a difference.

One more point: Since the British considered those 6000 impressed persons to be British subjects, does that mean they could not be considered 'natural born' and thus be ineligible to be President, even if they were born, say, in 1796 in, oh, Philadelphia? Or does that illustrate why the view of any other country as to an individual's citizenship is irrelevant to the US?

821 posted on 12/06/2008 6:16:22 PM PST by calenel (The Democratic Party is a Criminal Enterprise. It is the Socialist Mafia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 715 | View Replies]

To: calenel

(1) American Citizen + (1) Foreign Citizen + Birth on US Soil = NATURAL BORN CITIZEN ?!

calenel, so you're good with this, right?


822 posted on 12/06/2008 6:22:22 PM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 798 | View Replies]

To: wndawmn666
"This is from FactCheck"

Gently: Obama, Ayers and FactCheck all have ties to Annenberg and to each other. Not a credible source.

823 posted on 12/06/2008 6:25:19 PM PST by calenel (The Democratic Party is a Criminal Enterprise. It is the Socialist Mafia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 723 | View Replies]

To: wndawmn666
"Perkins V. Elg says the child is a ‘citizen of the United States’. Not a natural born citizen."

"Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States"

I did point out the relevant section.

824 posted on 12/06/2008 6:27:57 PM PST by calenel (The Democratic Party is a Criminal Enterprise. It is the Socialist Mafia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 724 | View Replies]

To: calenel
The issue is not if he is a citizen. He is even a citizen of Indonesia. The issue is whether he is a natural-born citizen in the sense that the framers posed that title via the Constitution in regard to the Presidential candidate such that a President would not have divided loyalties.

You remind me of the little boy who wants something and will not take any answer other than the one he wants said. Your agenda is becoming plainer with every one of your posts. You are here to obfuscate and sow doubt and play obamanoid agitprop. No need to give you any further attention.

825 posted on 12/06/2008 6:34:56 PM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 799 | View Replies]

To: BonRad

And again, would the British Crown’s view that persons born in the colonies up to the end of the War of 1812 - a view it clearly held - make those persons ineligible to be President? Or does it illustrate that the views of foreign governments have no bearing what so ever on the eligibility of an individual to be POTUS?


826 posted on 12/06/2008 6:36:40 PM PST by calenel (The Democratic Party is a Criminal Enterprise. It is the Socialist Mafia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 730 | View Replies]

To: wndawmn666
This is from FactCheck:

Funny, I didn't see that in FactCheck's sister publication:


827 posted on 12/06/2008 6:51:36 PM PST by Shady Ray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 723 | View Replies]

To: Newtiebacker; Polarik
"'Proven' by whom?"

Polarik. Some more here.

828 posted on 12/06/2008 6:55:08 PM PST by calenel (The Democratic Party is a Criminal Enterprise. It is the Socialist Mafia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 734 | 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'? "

This might help you. Also, Perkins V. Elg.

829 posted on 12/06/2008 7:00:16 PM PST by calenel (The Democratic Party is a Criminal Enterprise. It is the Socialist Mafia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 737 | 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'? "

This might help you. Also, Perkins V. Elg.

"And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States. Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States."

"...born...citizens...". Having that attribute or quality from birth. Now, looking that up in my magic reverse dictionary: ah! 'natural born citizen'

830 posted on 12/06/2008 7:05:39 PM PST by calenel (The Democratic Party is a Criminal Enterprise. It is the Socialist Mafia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 737 | View Replies]

To: BP2

Supreme Court rulings (several cited, but you won’t read and acknowledge them) trump State Department manuals.


831 posted on 12/06/2008 7:12:27 PM PST by calenel (The Democratic Party is a Criminal Enterprise. It is the Socialist Mafia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 753 | View Replies]

To: BP2
By your heredity argument, Woodrow Wilson. Not that we wouldn't have been better off without. I suppose you could argue the fact that it was his mother and not his father that was born Scottish, but the 14th Amendment doesn't specify gender as significant.
832 posted on 12/06/2008 7:24:33 PM PST by calenel (The Democratic Party is a Criminal Enterprise. It is the Socialist Mafia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 756 | View Replies]

To: curiosity; Polarik
"BS"

As far as I know, Polarik's analysis is credible. Take it up with him, then.

833 posted on 12/06/2008 7:28:05 PM PST by calenel (The Democratic Party is a Criminal Enterprise. It is the Socialist Mafia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 763 | View Replies]

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

Did you take that out of context deliberately, or did you just miss the "If Obama was born in the US" part? McCain acknowledges he was born out of the US to US citizen parents. Obama denies that he was born outside the US to a non citizen and an unqualified to pass citizenship by virtue of residency citizen. Apples and Oranges.

834 posted on 12/06/2008 7:34:22 PM PST by calenel (The Democratic Party is a Criminal Enterprise. It is the Socialist Mafia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 766 | View Replies]

To: calenel

“Polarik. Some more here.”

Ohhh...kayyy...

This is the guy with the Jigsaw voice and mushed-out face on the YouTube video? One of Berg’s ‘experts?’

Let’s just say I found this guy more credible. That and it logically follows that were it actually a fake there would be lots more people coming forward, so many so it would be impossible to contain the deluge. It wouldn’t be limited to the minions of 911 ‘truthers.’

http://hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?%2Farchives%2F235-Bad-Science-How-Not-To-Do-Image-Analysis-Part-II.html


835 posted on 12/06/2008 7:35:58 PM PST by Newtiebacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 828 | View Replies]

To: Chet 99
Neither McCain nor Obama have gone through the naturalization process. Thus, if they are not natural born citizens, they are in fact ILLEGAL ALIENS.

"they are in fact ILLEGAL ALIENS" ..... Wrong for McCain.....

McCain is an American citizen by the fact that his father was on Active U.S. Military Duty and his mother was an American citizen.

836 posted on 12/06/2008 7:42:01 PM PST by Buddy B (MSgt Retired-USAF - Year: 1972)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: danamco
Tubalcain: "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."

danamco: "Yes, IF both parents are U.S. citizens, which is NOT the case here!!!"

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

danamco: "Hello? Are talking about the same issue?? Who is Hussein's father???"

Your assertion that for a citizen that does not have to be naturalized, that two US citizen parents are required in order for that person to be considered a natural born citizen. Where is your source for that?

837 posted on 12/06/2008 7:46:27 PM PST by calenel (The Democratic Party is a Criminal Enterprise. It is the Socialist Mafia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 773 | View Replies]

To: BonRad
A number of incorrect assertions just in the portions you posted. For example, Chin's claim on the law at the time of McCain's birth making him not a citizen at birth is false, although he does get the 'born a citizen is a natural born citizen' part correct. This is the Law at the time of McCain's birth:

1934 Act of May 24, 1934, Section 1, 48 Stat. 797.

"Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States: but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child. In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child's twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Bureau of Naturalization."

This clearly establishes that any child of a citizen is also a citizen, with the caveat of some residency requirements that would not apply to McCain as both his parents were citizens, and some that would but which were clearly met.

838 posted on 12/06/2008 8:05:25 PM PST by calenel (The Democratic Party is a Criminal Enterprise. It is the Socialist Mafia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 794 | View Replies]

To: SerafinQ
I agree with you in principle - the COTUS should not be reinterpreted to suit a political agenda - but the COTUS is subject to interpretation as a matter of common practice. In other words, it does matter who appoints SCJs because of the interpretations they will make.
839 posted on 12/06/2008 8:10:31 PM PST by calenel (The Democratic Party is a Criminal Enterprise. It is the Socialist Mafia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 796 | View Replies]

To: calenel; BP2
"I have yet to see the expression 'father and mother are citizens' or the like in any of these supposed proofs of the 'two citizen parents' argument."

However I have seen the phrase 'citizen father or citizen mother or both' which makes one or both parents equivalent in terms of requirements. Specifically, 'father or mother or both' means one is sufficient.

1934 Act of May 24, 1934, Section 1, 48 Stat. 797.

"Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States: but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child. In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child's twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Bureau of Naturalization."

840 posted on 12/06/2008 8:15:58 PM PST by calenel (The Democratic Party is a Criminal Enterprise. It is the Socialist Mafia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 798 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 801-820821-840841-860 ... 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