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 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 921-922 next last
To: calenel

It is much simpler. A baby is born. Is that baby a legal U.S. Citizen at the time of birth? If so, he is a natural born citizen. If he is not a citizen at birth and obtains citizenship at a later date, he’s a naturalized citizen. Since Obama did not do the latter, he’s either a natural born citizen or he’s an illegal alien.


61 posted on 12/04/2008 1:37:54 AM PST by Chet 99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Big_Monkey
Anyone in the US, with extremely limited exception, is “subject to the jurisdiction therof.”

ANYONE born on sovereign US soil is a citizen without qualification.

I refer you to post #11 from John Valentine, who can steer you toward the case law regarding this issue...

“Children of illegal aliens, if they are born in the United States, are U.S. citizens. That is in the U.S. Constitution.”

>>> "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." <<<

11 posted on Thursday, December 04, 2008 2:02:29 AM by John Valentine

62 posted on 12/04/2008 1:44:46 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 47 | View Replies]

To: BP2

My take on the article was the same as yours. The author made an effort to report the facts and keep personal bias out. I appreciate that — so many these days are tragically incapable of keeping themselves out of the articles. However, as you mentioned, once again the distinction between “citizen” and “natural born” citizen is glossed over by the Obama advocates. That makes me mad. They are word-playing and they know it. It is deceptive and irresponsible.


63 posted on 12/04/2008 1:53:42 AM PST by so_real
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FFranco
"So this citation from “The Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S. Code Section 1401 (b). (Section 301 of the Act)

'a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States, who prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years'

"This citation proves that because Obama was NOT born in America, and his mother was under 21, and his father was not a US citizen, he is NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, and therefore cannot serve as President."

Well, since that is essentially my position, I'm not sure I understand your question. Aside from the fact that 14+5=19 (not 21) (hey, blame the public schools) (I'm kidding), IF Obama was born 'outside the geographical limits of the United States' then he can NOT be a citizen unless his father was an American, which he was not.

"That is what Judge Thomas and the other members of the Supreme Court will decide and John McCain will become President. Whether Biden or Palin will serve as VP will be up to the Supremes too. (I hope it’s Palin.)"

The COTUS is pretty clear on the POTUS and VPOTUS Electoral College votes being totally separate. It would be pretty difficult to prove Biden knowingly participated in any fraud, no matter what we might ourselves believe, and the Rats clearly have no shame. Biden is (sadly) going to be the VP, almost certainly. Could be McCain/Biden. Could be just Acting President Biden, too, if it goes to the House and they refuse to choose their only alternative, McCain (Sit On Hands scenario). That would be the gift that keeps on giving, so I doubt they (Rat controlled House) would do that.

64 posted on 12/04/2008 1:56:42 AM PST by calenel (The Democratic Party is a Criminal Enterprise. It is the Socialist Mafia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Chet 99
“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.”

Your simplistic reading ignores the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". While you in your mind might think otherwise, this is no small thing.

If you were correct, then the wording could just as well be “All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

But, pleae take note: That's NOT what the authors wrote, and for good reason. That's NOT what the authors meant, and its not what the ratifiers understood. YOUR view of this matter is the least relevant one of all.

It is a travesty when yo-yos decide that they can ignore what was meant and substitute their own later-day understandings for the understandings of the consitutional authors, even if those yo-tos happen to be judges. In fact that's even worse. And that's exactly what has happened here.

Now, you may THINK what ever you may want to think, and in fact what you think may be the common perception. In this case it is.

It doesn't change the fact that you can only get there by ignoring, twisting, and subverting the Constitution. Hopefully, one day it will be upheld when a case of first impression reaches the court. It hasn't happened yet in the history of the country. Your bent interpretation has never NEVER been tested in the highest Court in the land.

65 posted on 12/04/2008 1:56:49 AM PST by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: calenel
I went to your profile and read the statute quoted, and saw that you also have the Natural Born citizen clause from the Constitution there.

After reading through the statute a couple of times, and reading historical references posted by others, it's apparent to me that what's wrong here, is that the US is lacking clarity in its citizenship laws and definitions. Not to mention the fact that the Natural Born Citizen phrase and intent is not agreed upon by all.

We obviously need some clarity on all of this. Thankfully, this may finally be taken up by the Supreme Court and sorted out. The sooner, the better too. Times a'tickin' and January 20th looms.

66 posted on 12/04/2008 2:01:23 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 56 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
If they are in the US and not on the short list of exceptions, diplomats, Indians, Hostile Occupiers, etc. then they ARE subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They can be arrested, jailed, tried, convicted, deported, given in-state tuition, get speeding tickets and not pay them, get evicted, collect welfare, sue people, yada yada yada. They do not have diplomatic immunity. Here, read this. Second paragraph has some meat.
67 posted on 12/04/2008 2:05:08 AM PST by calenel (The Democratic Party is a Criminal Enterprise. It is the Socialist Mafia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: TChris

bttt


68 posted on 12/04/2008 2:08:29 AM PST by txhurl (somebody just bought 12 Carrier Battle Groups for 600 million dollars)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Chet 99

But NOT neccesarily NATURAL BORN CITIZENS. The only legal distinction is that Natural Born citizens ARE eligible to be POTUS, citizens are not.


69 posted on 12/04/2008 2:09:06 AM PST by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
Your simplistic reading ignores the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". ...this is no small thing.

...the wording could just as well be “All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

But, pleae take note: That's NOT what the authors wrote, and for good reason. That's NOT what the authors meant, and its not what the ratifiers understood.

It's interesting that you single that phrase out in your post, John. I was just making a point about that phrase to another poster, though I'm not sure that we intended the exact same thing in our communications.

I referred the poster to your post #11.

70 posted on 12/04/2008 2:09:15 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 65 | View Replies]

To: Chet 99

But NOT neccesarily NATURAL BORN CITIZENS. The only legal distinction is that Natural Born citizens ARE eligible to be POTUS, citizens are not.


71 posted on 12/04/2008 2:13:27 AM PST by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: calenel

Went and had a quick look, but I’ve just noticed the clock. I’ll have to pick it up tomorrow. G’night.


72 posted on 12/04/2008 2:13:57 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 67 | View Replies]

To: Big_Monkey
Anyone in the US, with extremely limited exception, is “subject to the jurisdiction therof.”

Should I call you Mr. Big or is it Mr. Monkey?

In either case, the mistake you make is the same. You substitute your own, present-day, interpretation of the phrase "subject to the jusrisdiction thereof" in lieu of the meaning attributed to the phrase by those who wote it.

This ia a BIG mistake, because you render the phrase meaningless in the process.

In the minds of the congressional aauthors of the 14th Amendment, and in the minds of those State legislators who voted during the ratification process, the importance of this phrase was SPECIFICALLY to exclude the children of foreigners who were not citizens. You also overlook years and volumes of legal scholarship on this issue, and that makes you not very credible.

The Wong Ho Ark case extended the coverage of the 14th, quite without cogent reason, to the children of RESIDENTS, but it has NEVER been extended to the children of just ANYONE.

Your comments reveal you to be essentially ignorant of the subject matter, which is quite ok; it is the natural state of everyone before they acquire information. However, prior to making declarative statements that are incorrect and wrong-headed, it is usually better to do some research.

Here's a place to start:

http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/misinterpreted.html

73 posted on 12/04/2008 2:14:29 AM PST by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: BP2
DONOFRIO IS NOT DISPUTING THAT OBAMA IS A US CITIZEN!

On the other hand, Philip Berg, who has also filed suit with the Supreme Court, does say that B. Hussein Obama is not a US citizen, on several grounds, including:

It seems to me that the Indonesian matter is conclusive - Barack Hussein Obama is today a citizen of Indonesia.

74 posted on 12/04/2008 2:19:11 AM PST by Celtman (It's never right to do wrong to do right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BP2

thanks for the ping.

Obama on Clarence Thomas

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=KfblJvKXiP0


75 posted on 12/04/2008 2:19:33 AM PST by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calenel

Am I reading too much into this, or does this law mean that Obama is not even a citizen of the US?


76 posted on 12/04/2008 2:21:52 AM PST by Celtman (It's never right to do wrong to do right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
"Not to mention the fact that the Natural Born Citizen phrase and intent is not agreed upon by all."

If someone, anyone, can show me a legitimate source that contradicts my position I will happily acknowledge it and convert. Thus far it has not been forthcoming.

77 posted on 12/04/2008 2:26:17 AM PST by calenel (The Democratic Party is a Criminal Enterprise. It is the Socialist Mafia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Celtman
"Am I reading too much into this, or does this law mean that Obama is not even a citizen of the US?"

If born in Kenya, he is an illegal alien. In that case he shouldn't have been elected Senator as that requires citizenship.

78 posted on 12/04/2008 2:28:32 AM PST by calenel (The Democratic Party is a Criminal Enterprise. It is the Socialist Mafia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: calenel

If someone, anyone, can show me a legitimate source that contradicts my position I will happily acknowledge it and convert. Thus far it has not been forthcoming.

The legitimate and primary source is the U.S. Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment, and a correct reading of it which should not be hard to do if one is of rational mind and understands the English language. To me its meaning is crystal clear. Obama is not a natural born citizen. And, as Berg states in his suit, not even a U.S. citizen. His whole presidential election is based on fraud and deception.


79 posted on 12/04/2008 2:31:38 AM PST by flaglady47 (Four years of captivity, no relief in sight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: BP2

Joe Biden....... Didn’t he chair the Judiciary Committee when Justice Thomas going through the confirmation process?


80 posted on 12/04/2008 2:33:38 AM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 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