"The main stream media should stop saying SCOTUS refused to hear the case. It was distributed for conference on Nov. 19. They had the issue before them for for sixteen days. Yes, they didn’t take it to the next level of full briefs and oral argument. But they certainly heard the case and read the issues. The media is failing to acknowledge that. The case and issues were considered. Getting the case to the full Court for such consideration was my goal. I trust the Supreme Court had good reason to deny the application. Despite many attempts to stop their full review, my case was placed on their desks and into their minds. Please remember that. It’s important for history to record that." - Donofrio
I hope not. Having decided not to hear Donofrio's case based on its merits then another suit arguing the same issues won't get any further. Future suits need to approach the argument from different directions.
This is driving me nuts. Could it be or not? No not the biggest question, the second biggest question,... Will this get swept under the rug? And ... What would happen if it was proven he wasn't eligible to be the Prez? Not technically, but socially. I think there are MANY places where people aren't as ready to accept or believe it could be the truth as much as us here on the Freep. Thoughts?...Nay Sayers, hold on now. As the MSM slowly starts picking this up, it’s going to titillate the uneducated masses. There still is time . . . but buy your guns and ammo anyway.
No reason to take any chances.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/
Seems like theres precident anyway.
“Perkins v. Elg
No. 454
Argued February 3, 1939
Decided May 29, 1939*
307 U.S. 325
Syllabus
1. A child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States. P. 307 U. S. 328.
2. As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, the same person may possess a dual nationality. P. 307 U. S. 329.
3. A citizen by birth retains his United States citizenship unless deprived of it through the operation of a treaty or congressional enactment or by his voluntary action in conformity with applicable legal principles. P. 307 U. S. 329.
4. It has long been a recognized principle in this country that, if a child born here is taken during minority to the country of his parents’ origin, where his parents resume their former allegiance, he does not thereby lose his citizenship in the United States provided that, on attaining majority, he elects to retain that citizenship and to return to the United States to assume its duties. P. 307 U. S. 329.
Expatriation is the voluntary renunciation or abandonment of nationality and allegiance. P. 307 U. S. 334.
5. This right of election is consistent with the naturalization treaty with Sweden of 1869 and its accompanying protocol. P. 307 U. S. 335.
6. The Act of March 2, 1907, in providing “That any American citizen shall be deemed to have expatriated himself when he has been naturalized in any foreign state in conformity with its laws, . . . “ was aimed at voluntary expatriation, and was not intended to destroy the right of a native citizen, removed from this country during minority, to elect to retain the citizenship acquired by birth and to return here for that purpose, even though he may be deemed to have been naturalized under the foreign law by derivation from the citizenship of his parents before he came of age. “
There is also a case coming from California which might be filed with SCOTUS today (Alan Keyes) challenging Obama’s citizenship.
http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244