Posted on 12/03/2008 11:43:31 PM PST by BP2
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 Obamas status as a United States citizen.
Thomass 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 courts 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 states presidential ballot because of Donofrios own questions about Obama citizenship.
Donofrio is a retired lawyer who identifies himself as a citizens advocate. The AFRO learned that he is a contributor to naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com, a Web site that raises questions about Obamas citizenship.
Calls made to Donofrios residence were not returned to the AFRO by press time.
Donofrio is questioning Obamas 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, Obamas 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.
Donofrios choice was Thomas. He submitted the emergency stay to Thomass 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 clerks office of the Supreme Court. A letter to the court explaining the reason for the emergency stay was filed on Dec. 1 at the clerks office.
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 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 Donofrios 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 Donofrios 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 courts 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 Washingtons 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 Donofrios argument that Obamas 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.
“And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”
Nor does it preclude the possibility of dual citizenship.
Where do you get that definition of “natural born” citizen?
The difference is that the McCains were in Panama on military assignment. So there is no question about McPain being “natural born”. Otherwise, military persons would be discriminated against.
"This encompassed many classes of individuals beyond those described."
But several SCOTUS rulings cited on this thread disagree, or at least disagree with the claim that Obama is not a citizen on the basis of his father's citizenship status alone. We can argue that a SCOTUS ruling was wrong or misguided, but we cannot arbitrarily wave them away. Perhaps, had I been on the SCOTUS for Wong Kim Ark I would have agreed with the dissenting minority, or perhaps not. I know for sure that I would have been on the other side of Roe v. Wade. That doesn't and won't change the law of the land.
Maybe there should be a law - or better yet, a Constitutional Amendment, since such a law would likely not survive a Constitutional challenge - to define in no uncertain terms who is eligible to be President, since the definition we have now has apparently lost clarity.
“Please, journalists, PLEASE — learn the difference! They are NOT the same.”
Don’t you think it is being reported this way on purpose? Journalist are telling 1/2 truth just the way the media loves to report.
And THAT is where the other side’s argument will go if Zero is found to be an illegitimate candidate. What happens then? Would that mean that Bush stays on or would the unthinkable occur? (see Pelosi)
Good citing, unfortunately Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy do not fit the definition.
So what is the difference between Natural Born Citizen and Citizen at Birth?
Ping.
They certainly ARE, under current law. The thing for Congress to do (which it has refused to do so far) is to define "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as excluding those in the country illegally. This would do an "end run" around the 14th, which was written to avoid declassifying blacks as "persons" and not to grant citizenship willy nilly to anyone here.....
However, in saying so, it is important to note that in the 19th century we had NONE of the ridiculous rules for entering this country we now have. The vast majority of the immigrant parents/grandparents of proud freepers who prate about "coming here legally" simply got on a boat with NO PAPERWORK AT ALL. Ellis Island (and scores of other immigrant sites) simply procesed them through, with papers or as WOPS (without papers, the origin of this Italian slur). The idea of passive eager immigrants lining up to get their "visa" outside the slovokian embassy is so idiotic as to be absurd.
Our immigrant problems are NOT the result of Mexican peasants who are lawbreaking goldbricks, eager to exploit our federal grabbag of giveaways. The problems stem from our welfare system and endless "programs" themselves. We are afraid to admit people who, even with unemployment tickling 7%, without whom large sections of our service industries would simply collapse. If we admitted them legally, they will be swarmed by "social" organizations pumping them to ride that gravy train. I have seen it happen.
Immigrations should be EASY to get here legally, and HARD to get here illegally. Once here legally, no "benefits" to non citizens. Of course, our federal gov't has the situation reversed. Natch.
Yes they are. Subject to the jurisdiction means subject to our laws. Regardless of whether they are here legally or illegally, the immigrant can be arrested if they violate the law. Contrast that with a foreign representative protected by diplomatic immunity and not subject to the laws.
And where is that defined by law exactly?
Is that why he never raised the issue during the campaign???
That's Donofrio's arguement.
If he was born in the U.S. then yes he is.
He was born to two Americans in a hospital in Colon, Panama. By law he is a natural born U.S. citizen. By any logical definition of the word he is a natural born U.S. citizen. But by Donofrio's definition, he is not because he was not born on U.S. territory.
"Because I won't allow it, and I am going to move the goalposts!" he continued.
And likewise, if you are not part of a well-regulated militia, you'd better turn your guns in right now.
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.