Posted on 12/03/2008 11:43:31 PM PST by BP2
Bookmark
A comma has been added after the word "States."
That was a surprisingly balanced report. However, given this passage:
“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.”
what is up with the headline?
By the way, this case cannot win. I’m pretty sure it’s solid tradition for all children born on U.S. soil, regardless of dual citizenship, to be considered U.S. citizens at birth. Although we don’t technically recognize dual citizenship, we don’t demand that in order to be a citizen you must renounce all other national ties.
“I don’t think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation, setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the Constitution,” Obama said about Thomas....
did someone say afro?
all kidding aside, i am thankful that Justice Thomas is the one who allowed this to move forward.
God Bless Justice Clarence Thomas, A true American hero and a patriot of America and her constitution.
For the gazillionth time... The Constitution requires that the President be a Natural born citizen, not just a citizen.
Natural Born
>>> “Thomass 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 Thomass actions are once in a decade. When that does happen, the case has to be of an extraordinary nature...” <<<
I find the above passages to be very illuminating. For one, it affirms to me that Leo Donofrio knows his Justices, so picked Justice Thomas to re-file his petition to, as the one Justice most likely to act on the overwhelmingly urgent implications of the issue.
Secondly, what Professor Morrison had to say about a Justice taking up a petition which had previously been denied by another Justice, as “once in a decade”, and being of an “extraordinary nature” is fascinating, and very encouraging.
Of course, the good Professor had to go on and interject his liberal, and uninformed opinion of the matter, but hey, he also gave me a big hook to hang my hopes on.
wouldn’t a strict interpretation say that the founders were dealing with the situation of citizenship at the time that the constitution was adopted? In other words they were not thinking about 200 years later
That is most certainly NOT in the U.S. Constitution.
Some people believe it is so because of a common misreading of the 14th Amendment due to a misunderstanding of the holdings of the Wong Kim Ark case. The fact is, this misreading of the 14th turns the amendment straight onto its head, and gives the Amendment precisely the opposite effect of that intended by its authors, Congress, and the ratifying States.
NO case heard in the Supreme Court has EVER held that birthright citizenship is granted under the 14th Amendment to the children of people in the United States illegally. Or legally, for that matter, if not admitted as immigrants.
LOVE your emphasis!
I totally agree that it is become increasingly annoying that people who are completely UNINFORMED about the 5 cases at the USSC are constantly being interviewed for their opinion.
Get the facts or DON’T TALK!@%$#^!!!
http://americamustknow.com/default.aspx
I think they definitely were thinking about both scenarios, since they mentioned the exception to the natural born rule being a citizen at the time of adoption.
Are you still confused on the citizen part?
ditto, bookmark. OMG, hope this can work out.
Obama either was a natural born citizen at the time of birth or he is an illegal alien who should be deported (because he never went through the naturalization process). Take your pick.
That would apply if you thought of the Constitution as a living document.
If you do any research into the Constitution, it becomes VERY apparent that the founding fathers put a lot of thought into the foundation of our country, for its future.
These men, though maybe 200 years ago, were by no means backwards nubes. In fact just the opposite, I'd say that by todays standards they'd be considered geniuses.
I think they'd also be appalled at where our country is today, and each and everyone would probably race to take up arms, to reverse what our country has become.
They did not take their responsibilty lightly. Unlike most of us today (including myself).
“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.”
If you’re born in the United States, you are a citizen of the US. Period.
Maybe Donofrio was thinking Thomas didn't like what 0bama had to say about him at Saddleback.
No, that would be a looser interpretation - or Revisionism. You know like, "our Framers didn't understand the crime we'd have today. We don't need that part in the 4th Amendment about Search and Seizure anymore. If our police need to look in a house that may have drugs, they can kick the door down and confiscate the evidence to check it back in their CSI lab without cause, and without a warrant. After all, 200 years ago, they did not know the problems we'd face today...
Unfortunately, last time I checked, the Constitution does not have lungs or a heartbeat, i.e., it's NOT a living document.
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.