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.
he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Actually, the restriction on pardons is only in cases of impeachment. He could pardon himself for anything else.
Me, too. It is one of those apocryphal references that keep getting cited on this topic.
That and this alleged travel ban to Pakistan. Try finding any evidence to support that one.
This whole thing is like one big game of telephone. Someone says, "Maybe Obama was born in Kenya" and the next person says "I'll bet Obama was born in Kenya" and the next person says, "Maybe his mom went there to visit and couldn't get back in time" and the next person says "I heard his mom went there and couldn't get back in time" and so on and so on.
The second comma is a typo. It would make the first clause superfluous. Ahnold could run, and we know he can’t. Also, there were no ‘natural born’ citizens in existence until after the adoption.
I noticed that, too!
US Citizens - born on US soil with no parent being a citizen, 1 parent being a citizen.
Natural born - born of 2 US citizens "
Where is the statute found that makes this distinction? What is the exact definition of 'natural born' and what is the source of that definition?
Read updates at Leo’s web site. All your questions can be answered there. Leo will be on Plains at 9:00Eastern and with Geroge Noory at 1:00Eastern. Rev. Manning is on Plains Radio now.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
'Legal' and 'illegal' are inherently jurisdictional terms.
" They are subject to the jujrisdiction of the governnent of their own country."
When they are in their own country, sure, but when they are in the US they are subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Unless they are diplomats, Indians subject to tribal law or members of a hostile occupying army. When I was in Germany I was subject to the jurisdiction of the government of West Germany. I had to pay their taxes, obey their laws and so on. Some of the kids from school (DODDS) were children of diplomats with diplomatic passports. When we rode the (public transportation) bus from school I had to pay a fare. If an inspector boarded the bus and demanded my ticket, he could write me a ticket (meaning I would have to pay a fine) if I didn't have one. The diplomatic kids only had to flash their diplomatic passports and the inspector would ignore them. An abuse of diplomatic immunity, albeit minor, but still immunity. That's what subject to the jurisdiction means.
What's the status of legal aliens who plan on becoming a citizen but have not yet taken the oath?"
They are both subject to, unless they are diplomats, etc. I think that children of illegal alien La Raza (hostile occupying force) members are not citizens by birth, but that would be really tough to win.
“Who may be born citizens of the States is conditional upon being born ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States. The legislative definition of ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ was defined as ‘Not owing allegiance to anybody else.’”
That’s not true according to the case law I’ve read. I think it is pretty well established that we allow dual citizenship at birth.
“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.”
Did the case in question explicitly state that it chose the word “native” instead of “natural” for specific reasons? Or can you point to other cases that define “native” and “natural” differently in the same manner? I doubt it.
You go through a lot of tortured logic to prove that the 14th amendment does not set the standard for who is elligible to be president. We all know that. What you don’t seem to realize is that the 14th amendment sets a standard for people being born in the U.S. as citizens. If you are born as a U.S. citizen, you are a natural born citizen, and therefore elligible to be president under whatever article it is that sets that standard.
Again, there are only two types of citizens: natural born and naturalized. Natural born citizens posess the “same level of citizenship” as naturalized citizens, as you say, except as regards elligibility to be president. There is no seperate category of citizenship called “born citizens under the 14th amendment” who are not natural born citizen. If you are born a citizen under the 14th amendment, you are a natural born citizen, because that’s what it means to be a natural born citizen: to be born a citizen.
Then why does it matter who gets to appoint SC Justices?
“The 14th Amendment does not deal with the issue of natural-born citizenship. It was meant to address that fact that slaves were not being treated as citizens in the former Confederate States. The 14th Amendment makes it clear that if you are born in that US and subject to US jurisdiction, then you are a citizen. That’s it. You’re reading more into it than is there.”
The 14th amendment specifies who is a citizen at the time of their birth, and people who are citizens at the time of their birth are natural born citizens. That’s what “natural born citizen” means.
“A natural born citizen requires no STATUTE to achieve their natural born citizenship.”
This is a nonsensical distninction. If a law says you are a citizen at birth, then you are a natural born citizen. No one can tell you that you are any less a citizen than the magical people who somehow were natural born without any law telling them so.
“Were still waiting for proof of that ‘born on U.S. soil’ part, also.”
Granted, but that is not at issue in this case.
“In my example, if tourists on a visit happen to birth a child, he is considered a natural-born citizen according to the presidential requirement, what then stops an enemy-country from sending a female here, she has her baby, but takes him back to her country for indoctrination/America hating, etc., only to have him come back here in time to meet the residency requirement and then run for president? Carrying that kind of mindset?? No way, I say this simply cannot be tolerated.”
That would be what we call a loophole. If you don’t like it, amend the Constitution. Or, better yet, raise the issue during the election. I, for one, doubt the chances of success of some evil genius plotting to steal the presidency from abroad in such a manner. Why? Because the odds that any particular person, especially your border-jumping daughter from an enemy nation, will be elected president is almost zero.
I don't think you are an Obamacrat - I hope you aren't mistaking me for someone else. As far as I can tell, you hold the same position as I do, which is "[that there is no] third category in COTUS or law distinguishing something called 'natural born' citizen as opposed to simply born in the U.S."
And yet that is exactly what we are debating, and why the Founders put requirements in place for the job.
“If Arnold cant be President because he is only a citizen of the United States, neither can Barack or Wong Kim Ark. They are also only citizens of the United States.”
For some reason, you seem to believe that people on this thread are claiming that anyone designated a citizen under the 14th amendment is elligible to be president. No one is saying that. What we are saying is that those who are born citizens as defined by the 14th amendment are elligible to be president.
I have a question for you: if, as you say of 14th amendment citizens, “ALL of them can be Senators or Representatives. NONE of them can be President,” who can be president? Do you imagine that there is a third category of citizenship in addition to natural born and naturalized, which I’ll call natural born citizens according to the 14th amendment? There isn’t. There are only two categories of citizenship, and people born citizens under the 14th amendment belong to the one that can be president.
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.