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.
Firstly, if you know so much more than the rest of us, you should share your knowledge, and perhaps state your credentials, if you want your ASSERTIONS to go unchallenged. Don't call me lazy when you are the one WHO CAN'T BE BOTHERED TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION. If your view is that it is not your job to 'school' me then don't respond to my posts.
As for what the FFs had to say on the matter, I once again cite the 1790 statute which was passed by a Congress that contained a number of them and signed by some guy named George Washington who, I was taught in grade school, used to hang around with them.
Now, if you can respond with something more substantial than an anonymous opinion and a refusal to actually substantiate it, please do.
So, then, only one 'set' of Americans can ever have children overseas? Because I 'minced' the plural 'citizens' to mean more than one citizen might actually dare to bear children overseas. Furthermore, your argument is weakened by the fact that at that time women were a protected class that by default acquired citizenship through their husbands if they weren't already. They weren't really factored in. Note the part about 'fathers who have never resided' and reconsider your position - they didn't say 'fathers or mothers'.
Pure nonsense.
You also have to be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." In Obama's case, he clearly was, as both his parents were legal residents of the State of Hawaii, so this lawsuit is absurd. I'm thinking the justices are going to hold a hearing on it just so they can have a good laugh.
However, it is not so clear that a child of two illegal aliens is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." But that's a topic for another day.
Whether an illegal alien is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US is unclear.
However, a legal alien who is a legal resident of a state is clearly under the jurisdiction of the United States. That would include Obama's father. His mother was a citizen. That means he was born in the United Wtates and under US jurisdiction, which makes him a natural born citizen.
Case closed.
The people who are bringing this case up before SCOTUS are no less delusional and stupid than those claiming McCain is not a natural born citizen, or those who claim Sarah Palin is not Trig's mother.
That's what I said - "As much as I despise Obama and all he stands for, this citizenship thing is silly" - or something very similar. But if he was born in Kenya, and there is some evidence, then he is not a US citizen by birth. Now, I'm catching up here and I'm a few hundred posts behind on this thread, but I bet I'm not the first to tell you that.
...why let this go to court? He is hiding something....
It's not up to him whether it goes to court.
He is hiding something....
What could he possibly be hiding? He released a copy of his birth certificate to the media. Hawaii officials verified the original is on file in Honolulu. We know his Father was a British subject at the time, but a legal resident of the US.
What is your problem?
He is hiding something...
You're not arguing the case at all. You don't want me to prove a damn thing to you. That's apparent because you keep shifting the goal posts in an effort to disorient me.
Using subtle coercion and bullying tactics to drive me into a corner isn't going to work, pal.
Want to see me cower? Forget it. You've proven what your real intentions are, so beat it.
US citizens CANNOT be President.
The very simplest question to ask and get an answer to, to the above is: WHY IS HE HIDING HIS BC, HIS COLLEGE RECORDS, HIS PASSPORT?
Why is all his records in Hawaii, Indonesia and Kenya under seal. Research has not revealed that the name of Stanley Ann Dunham has been admitted to any hospitals in Honolulu in the month of August, 1961??
His paternal grandmother in Kenya clams with adamant that she was present in the delivery room when Stanley Ann Dunham delivered him in Mombasa (?) Kenya???
Finally if this illegal alien becomes YOUR president, we might as well use the paper the Constitution as written in our bathrooms!!!
The goal posts have never changed, and I'll repeat it for you. What is the difference between natural born citizen and citizen at birth? And where is that difference defined?
Where? The only place that claim seems to be sourced from is the affidavits that Berg presents on his website. Go read them and see how full of holes they are.
"Perhaps the first most important thing to understand about national birthright is that there was no written national birthright rule until the year 1866. One will look in vain to find any national law on the subject prior to this year, or even any mention of the right to citizenship by birth under the United States Constitution."
Yet, there are these:
1790 First Congress, Act of March 26th, 1790, 1 Stat. 103.
"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".
1795 Act of January 29, 1795. Section 3, 1 Stat. 414, 415. (Same general provisions as above).
1802 Act of April 14, 1802. Section 4, 2 Stat. 153, 144. (Same general provisions as above).
1855 Act of February 10, 1855. Section 1, 10 Stat. 604.
"All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States."
The 'natural born' piece relies on some of the arguments used in the 'jurisdiction' piece, which is based on a faulty premise and much subjective argument. It also discussesd points of British common law but at the very top dismisses its own arguments by quoting George Mason: "The common law of England is not the common law of these States."
Both pieces are very subjective and should not be relied upon, nor can we tell the qualifications of the author. I think he must be a FReeper, based on the timing of some updates. However, its just a website, and as we know, not everything on the web is factual.
I thought I told you to beat it.
Not at all. But the 'citizen at birth but not natural born' class does NOT exist. The US does NOT care about dual citizenship. All that matters at this point is where Obama was born.
Do you think I am somehow supporting Obama? You are gravely mistaken if you do.
Saying it over and over won't make it true. There is no basis in Law or the COTUS to support your assertion. Or do you have something that you can show us?
I don’t think you ever responded to my earlier question of a specific reference for the change in the definition of ‘natural born’ from that found in the dictionary: ‘having an attribute or quality from birth’. Do you have one?
"Foreign Affairs Manual" is a manual, not a law book. It ranks pretty low on the "reliable reference" list. And "does not necessarily imply" is a bit noncommittal, don't you think? The reason that 'natural born' is omitted is because they (Congress) substituted 'citizen at birth', which means the same thing, in later versions.
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.