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 ... 581-600601-620621-640 ... 921-922 next last
To: wndawmn666
“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;”

That does not say 'citizens of the United States’ cannot be President.

It just limits the Presidency to the subset of citizens who are natural-born. Like Barrack Obama. Or Mr. Ark (but not citizens like me, who were naturalized).

The class of citizens includes both natural born citizens and naturalized citizens. Only the former can serve as President.

601 posted on 12/05/2008 11:24:02 AM PST by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 597 | View Replies]

To: wndawmn666
No, anyone that is merely BORN in the US cannot be President.

I've asked you several times- please show me where it says that in the COTUS, Federal law or case law.

602 posted on 12/05/2008 11:25:06 AM PST by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 600 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade

There doesn’t need to be a law.

All of our Presidents have met the criteria:

All of our Presidents were either citizens of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted (doesn’t apply to Obama since he’s not over 200 years old)

OR

They were born on US soil to US citizens.


603 posted on 12/05/2008 11:30:59 AM PST by wndawmn666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 598 | View Replies]

Please take a few minutes to see some information on our past Presidents citizenship at:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/


604 posted on 12/05/2008 11:32:08 AM PST by wndawmn666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 600 | View Replies]

To: wndawmn666
There doesn’t need to be a law.

So show me where it says that in the COTUS.

All of our Presidents were either citizens of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted (doesn’t apply to Obama since he’s not over 200 years old)OR They were born on US soil to US citizens.

So what?

605 posted on 12/05/2008 11:35:52 AM PST by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 603 | View Replies]

To: MozarkDawg
I don't want 0bama forced to show his vault copy birth certificate to defeat him, shove him out, *overturn the will of the people* -- I want him to show his vault copy to indeed prove he does meet the simple Constitutional requirement.

Well said. The left's default consideration of the right is entirely false. We don't hate them. We simply vehemently disagree with them.

All I want to know, is that Obama is at minimum, an American in blood and in law. That is all.

It's a foregone conclusion that we will be opposed to practically every ounce of his agenda, because we're conservatives. That's not even at issue, and doesn't equate to hatred of the man on our part.

What the left does not want to recognize, and what they will refuse to see, is that Obama has given our side (and theirs) every reason to suspect that something is amiss with his basic qualification to be President.

Obama himself is responsible for this growing controversy. Not us. Our side has always graciously accepted our election losses, unlike the Democrats. But, they overlook this too.

Our demand that he satisfy the simple requirements of office does not equal extremist hatred for the man.

606 posted on 12/05/2008 11:37:59 AM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 577 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade

It most certainly does say that.

“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;”

This means you cannot be President UNLESS you are a natural born citizen, UNLESS, of course, you were a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

The Framers were ‘citizens of the United States’. They were not natural born citizens of the United States. They had to grandfather themselves in.

The clause, ‘or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution’, expired by the time James Buchannan was running for President.


607 posted on 12/05/2008 11:39:39 AM PST by wndawmn666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 601 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade

Are you kidding?

So what?

So, it doesn’t matter that ALL of our Presidents have met the criteria up until Obama?

We should just toss the requirement aside for him?


608 posted on 12/05/2008 11:42:06 AM PST by wndawmn666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 605 | View Replies]

To: wndawmn666
This means you cannot be President UNLESS you are a natural born citizen, UNLESS, of course, you were a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

Of course. We are not in disagreement on this.

The Framers were ‘citizens of the United States’. They were not natural born citizens of the United States. They had to grandfather themselves in.

Sure, again, we are not in diagreement.

The clause, ‘or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution’, expired by the time James Buchannan was running for President.

Again, no disagreement.

Under the Constitution, only a citizen from birth/natural-born citizen, can be President. People who became citizens through the naturalization process cannot.

Becuase of his being born in the US, Barrack Obama was a US citizen from birth. He is therefore a natural-born citizen and is qualified to be President.

609 posted on 12/05/2008 11:43:42 AM PST by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 607 | View Replies]

To: wndawmn666
So, it doesn’t matter that ALL of our Presidents have met the criteria up until Obama?

All our Presidents were natural-born citizens, as is Barrack Obama. He meets the requirements the same as George Bush, Bill Clinton and any other President.

610 posted on 12/05/2008 11:45:03 AM PST by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 608 | View Replies]

To: wndawmn666

Citizen Blade keeps asking for a law.

The Constitution IS THE LAW.

It clearly states the criteria to be President.

“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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States. “

Obama is not a natural born citizen. He is a citizen of the United States.
Arnold is not a natural born citizen. He is a citizen of the United States.
Wong Kim Ark is not a natural born citizen. He is a citizen of the United States.
Citizen Blade is not a natural born citizen. He is a citizen of the United States.

Unless born at the time of the Constitution’s adoption, none of the above can serve as President. Why? Because they are only citizens of the United States. Not natural born citizens of the United States.

Why is this so hard to understand?


611 posted on 12/05/2008 11:50:04 AM PST by wndawmn666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 608 | View Replies]

To: wndawmn666
Obama is not a natural born citizen. He is a citizen of the United States.

Again, please show me how, under COTUS, Federal law or case law, Obama is not a natural born citizen. He did not become a citizen through the naturalization process but by birth- how is he not a natural-born citizen?

612 posted on 12/05/2008 11:53:21 AM PST by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 611 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade

No, he does not meet the requirements. One does not MERELY need to be born on US soil to be President.

ALL of our Presidents have been born on US soil to US citizens (plural).

Obama has ONE parent that was US citizen. He is not naturally born.

If Obama’s dad was naturalized and became a citizen of the US BEFORE Obama Jr. was born, this wouldn’t be an issue.


613 posted on 12/05/2008 11:53:46 AM PST by wndawmn666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 610 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade

He doesn’t have to go through naturalization to be a ‘citizen of the United States’.

He can be a citizen of the United States by being born on US soil.

Please read the 14th Amendment.


614 posted on 12/05/2008 11:55:02 AM PST by wndawmn666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 612 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty
...they will rule that even though 0bama wouldn't qualify under the laws in place at the time, subsequent laws supersede them and he is qualified.

Fortunately for us, they can't do that. It's called "Ex Post Facto", or "after the fact", and isn't legal under US law.

The laws on the books at the time of Obama's birth control his status.

615 posted on 12/05/2008 11:57:46 AM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 563 | View Replies]

To: wndawmn666
No, he does not meet the requirements. One does not MERELY need to be born on US soil to be President.

Show me where the added requirement of two American citizen parents is in COTUS, Federal law or case law.

ALL of our Presidents have been born on US soil to US citizens (plural).

Sure. So what?

Obama has ONE parent that was US citizen. He is not naturally born.

Show me where the added requirement of two American citizen parents is in COTUS, Federal law or case law.

If Obama’s dad was naturalized and became a citizen of the US BEFORE Obama Jr. was born, this wouldn’t be an issue.

Show me where it says this in COTUS, Federal law or case law.

616 posted on 12/05/2008 12:01:56 PM PST by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 613 | View Replies]

Fourteenth Amendment framer, Rep. John A. Bingham said the following:

“[E]very human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”


617 posted on 12/05/2008 12:12:28 PM PST by wndawmn666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 616 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
So you don't know why you agree with Donofrio? He opposed Obama so that was enough for you, you signed on without even understanding his positions?

You assume much. I understand Leo Donofrio's case perfectly.

...what's your real intention here?

>>> "My intent is to get a question answered..." <<<

Bullsh!t. You're either trying to pick a fight, have a chip on your shoulder, or you're attempting to bully me.

Now, go ahead and blow up. I know your type well.

618 posted on 12/05/2008 12:34:53 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 559 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
In the Wang Kim Ark vs. U.S., the Supreme Court termed Wang's citizenship as 'native born citizen' and not natural born citizen. You are the confusing specifics of the case with holding or dictum.

And this is why we need the Supreme Court to handle this. The law is mostly too arcane and esoteric for the average citizen to easily grasp, although the effects of the law impact us in ways that are real and solid.

It's no wonder that so many people despise lawyers and courts. They rightly see these entities as surreptitiously subverting their natural rights through trickery of words, and I believe that is so.

619 posted on 12/05/2008 12:40:58 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 556 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
You assume much. I understand Leo Donofrio's case perfectly.

Then answer the question. I assumed you would know enough about Donofrio's position to do be able to do that. I assumed too much it seems.

620 posted on 12/05/2008 2:04:39 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 618 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600601-620621-640 ... 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