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 ... 701-720721-740741-760 ... 921-922 next last
To: wndawmn666
"I am not trying to create a third type of citizen."

Yes you are. 'Naturalized', 'natural born', and your new type, 'born a citizen but not a natural born citizen'. Look up 'natural born' in the dictionary. Been in the language 200 years longer than the COTUS has been in existence. If it meant more, other, different or what ever adjective you want to apply from the dictionary definition, wouldn't there be another dictionary definition to evidence that? There isn't another definition, therefore, there isn't another definition.

721 posted on 12/06/2008 9:01:55 AM PST by calenel (The Democratic Party is a Criminal Enterprise. It is the Socialist Mafia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 578 | View Replies]

To: wndawmn666

You know, I’m starting to catch up really fast, since I can skip over most of your posts as you are just spamming the thread and refuse to accept anybody else’s evidence or to provide your own.


722 posted on 12/06/2008 9:06:25 AM PST by calenel (The Democratic Party is a Criminal Enterprise. It is the Socialist Mafia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 588 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

The Constitution doesn’t recognize ‘naturalized citizens of the United States.

The Constitution recognizes TWO types of citizens:

Natural born citizens of the United States
and
Citizens of the United States

Is there a place in the Constitution that says ‘naturalized citizens of the United States’ cannot be President? No, there isn’t.

Article II, Section 1:

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.

Unless a ‘citizen of the United States’ was around at the time the Constitution was adopted, they cannot serve as President today.

Our Founding Fathers were ‘citizens of the United States’. They made provisions for themselves to be able to serve as President but that provision expired long ago. James Buchanan was the first President that had to be a natural born citizen in order to serve as President.

The 14th Amendment ONLY defines ‘Citizens of the United States’. It doesn’t not define ‘Naturalized citizens of the United States’. A person that goes through the naturalization process is considered a ‘citizen of the United States’.

Let’s say this. Everyone that is a ‘citizen of the United States’ gets a blue sticker.

Everyone that is a natural born citizen gets a red sticker.

Arnold gets a blue sticker. He is a citizen of the United States because he was naturalized here. He is NOT a ‘naturalized citizen of the United States’. The 14th Amendment says anyone naturalized in the United States is a ‘citizen of the United States’.

Anchor Baby (provided his parents aren’t foreign diplomats, enemies of the US, or native Indians) gets a blue sticker. Wong Kim Ark was a ‘citizen of United States’ by virtue of being born on US soil.

Barack gets a blue sticker. He is a citizen of the United States because he was born on US soil to a British Subject and a US citizen.

This is from FactCheck:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…”

Please read the last line. How can a Natural born citizen’s status be ‘governed’ by Great Britain?


723 posted on 12/06/2008 9:07:22 AM PST by wndawmn666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 652 | View Replies]

To: calenel

Perkins V. Elg says the child is a ‘citizen of the United States’.

Not a natural born citizen.


724 posted on 12/06/2008 9:10:29 AM PST by wndawmn666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 720 | View Replies]

To: Newtiebacker
What if she traveled to Antarctica on the way back and had her child there,...would that make BO a penguin? Is that why he has such funny ears? :)

LOL!! Good one!

725 posted on 12/06/2008 9:11:41 AM PST by Cuttnhorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 705 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie

It’s not that there was or wasn’t a decision, nothing was reported by the Court. No one knows for sure. At this point it is all conjecture. A decision could have been made, late in the day, and it simply wasn’t reported. Leo was again on Plains Radio last night. He is pessimistic by nature, yet he’s maintaining a degree of hope. Leo took calls last night from the audience. Some where nonsensical, others upbeat; in the vein of encouragement.


726 posted on 12/06/2008 9:11:57 AM PST by freepersup (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 712 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade
"Becuase of his being born in the US, Barrack Obama was a US citizen from birth."

If he was born in the US. The evidence that he was not, or rather, lack of evidence that he was, is becoming very compelling.

I have to get back to my personal life for a while, I'll finish catching up later

727 posted on 12/06/2008 9:13:05 AM PST by calenel (The Democratic Party is a Criminal Enterprise. It is the Socialist Mafia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 609 | View Replies]

To: BonRad

“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’.”

Was not Obama’s father a resident of the U.S., given that he was here legally before Obama was born? I don’t see how this definition is substantially different from the 14th amendment’s definition.


728 posted on 12/06/2008 9:14:07 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 715 | View Replies]

To: wndawmn666

“Please read the last line. How can a Natural born citizen’s status be ‘governed’ by Great Britain?”

Why should we care whether the United Kingdom’s laws address the progeny of it’s colonials? We fought two wars with them and made it quite clear we were not subject to their jurisdiction. Why would you assume we’re forced to succumb to it because some pasty-faced socialist gets enough votes in Whitehall to pass a bill about their own business?


729 posted on 12/06/2008 9:15:48 AM PST by Newtiebacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 723 | View Replies]

To: BonRad; calenel

I maybe muddied the waters a bit on tossing in War of 1812 as it didn’t settle “natural born” but rather was simple, direct refutation of the British claim, and affirmation of then very clear definition of what I’ll call at minimum: regular American citizenry. That some of these enforced conscripts were eligible to become president being born at time of Constitution’s ratification was the LONE further permission beyond “natural born”.

I simply want to underscore Donofrio’s (and Madison’s) point that reverse application of the British claim is very much in play in both what the founders intended to counter with further test of ArtII Sec 1 AND the failure of Bam Bam to pass the same test. British subjects of any “political” education such as Bam Bam’s (known) papa should have known better. The “crown” makes its stinking “realm” a possibilty and we have to remove ourselves by a generation from the pestilence thanks to “Mother England” stench. Sorry, thems the rules.


730 posted on 12/06/2008 9:18:32 AM PST by BonRad (As Rome goes so goes the world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 715 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
"What could he possibly be hiding? He released a copy of his birth certificate to the media."

A proven forgery (link on this thread). Why would he do that if he's not hiding anything?

"Hawaii officials verified the original is on file in Honolulu."

But not its contents.

731 posted on 12/06/2008 9:21:35 AM PST by calenel (The Democratic Party is a Criminal Enterprise. It is the Socialist Mafia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 628 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
"alleged travel ban to Pakistan"

My mother, an American citizen, worked for the Pakistani embassy in Bonn as a translator for several years including 1981. I'd guess from this admittedly circumstantial evidence that relations weren't quite as chilly as has been presented. I had Pakistanis in my American school at that time. I still have the plaque they gave her.

732 posted on 12/06/2008 9:27:43 AM PST by calenel (The Democratic Party is a Criminal Enterprise. It is the Socialist Mafia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 643 | View Replies]

To: wndawmn666

“The Constitution doesn’t recognize ‘naturalized citizens of the United States.”

Yes it does. Please reread the 14th amendment. It uses the word “naturalized” to refer to citizens who become citizens after their birth.

“The Constitution recognizes TWO types of citizens:

Natural born citizens of the United States
and
Citizens of the United States”

That is correct, i suppose. Naturalized citizens are on an equal footing with all other citizens, except in regards to the presidency, which requires you be born a citizen. So, in that sense, there are two types of citizens: those who can be president and those who can’t.

“Is there a place in the Constitution that says ‘naturalized citizens of the United States’ cannot be President? No, there isn’t.”

Of course there is, and you go on to quote it presently. The Constitution says that to be president, you have to be a natural born citizen. If you were naturalized, then by definition you were not born a citizen, and are therefore not a natural born citizen.

“Unless a ‘citizen of the United States’ was around at the time the Constitution was adopted, they cannot serve as President today.”

I cannot make sense of this sentence. The exception you refer to was created to grant the founding generation presidential elligibility. This was necessary because they were all older than the United States, and as such could not be natural born citizens. Everyone born a citizen after the passage of the 14th amendment, on the other hand, is in fact a natural born citizen, in my view.

“The 14th Amendment ONLY defines ‘Citizens of the United States’. It doesn’t not define ‘Naturalized citizens of the United States’. A person that goes through the naturalization process is considered a ‘citizen of the United States’.”

It does indeed define citizens of the U.S., including people born as citizens of the U.S., who are, by extension of my logic, natural born citizens.

“Everyone that is a natural born citizen gets a red sticker.”

And how do you pick which citizens get to wear a red sticker? Does a genie tell you something about Article II, Section I that I don’t know?

“Anchor Baby (provided his parents aren’t foreign diplomats, enemies of the US, or native Indians) gets a blue sticker. Wong Kim Ark was a ‘citizen of United States’ by virtue of being born on US soil.

Barack gets a blue sticker. He is a citizen of the United States because he was born on US soil to a British Subject and a US citizen.”

Why do they get blue stickers? Please tell me what part of the Constitution denies them red stickers.

“Please read the last line. How can a Natural born citizen’s status be ‘governed’ by Great Britain?”

Uh, I’m not responsible for FactCheck’s language. I suppose it’s perfectly fine to say that Great Britain “governs” how they view Obama’s citizenship status, just as the U.S. governs its own business. The U.S. government doesn’t care who the Brits recognize. We take care of our own, thank you very much.


733 posted on 12/06/2008 9:48:47 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 723 | View Replies]

To: calenel

“A proven forgery (link on this thread).”

“Proven” by whom? I followed a lot of these links and they all ended back at Berg and his compatriots. Having some experience enduring the photo “proof” of 911 conspirators that the Pentagon never got hit etc. I’m a little leery of said ‘proof’ from that quarter. I also came across rebuttals more compelling that claimed those experts either didn’t know their business or were fudging on the supposed ‘discrepancies.’

“Why would he do that if he’s not hiding anything?

If it’s fake, why would they do it at *all?* If there was something to hide, trying to pass a fake off to the world on the internet would seem the height of lunacy. Better to release nothing than to damn yourself completely with a fake that lots more people outside 911 ‘truthers’ and their ilk would be exposing.


734 posted on 12/06/2008 9:49:37 AM PST by Newtiebacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 731 | View Replies]

To: wndawmn666

“Perkins V. Elg says the child is a ‘citizen of the United States’.

Not a natural born citizen.”

Well, natural born citizens are citizens from birth, right? And Elg was a citizen from birth, right? Please tell me what part of the Constitution says Elg isn’t a natural born citizen.


735 posted on 12/06/2008 9:50:04 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 724 | View Replies]

To: BonRad

“Sorry, thems the rules.”

If you say so. Only, could you tell me where I can find a copy of the rules? Do you have a Secret Constitution, or something? Oh, is it Dick Cheney’s Shadow Constitution, ‘cause I’ve been wanting to read that.


736 posted on 12/06/2008 9:54:10 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 730 | View Replies]

To: calenel; montesquiue; Non-Sequitur; flaglady47; Newtiebacker; GBA; so_real; Publius Valerius; ...
What part of the Constitution or what federal law defines that?

AH, well, what part of the law says that Dual Citizenship, which is not currently recognized by the US, is "OKAY"?

Citizenship denotes rights, protections, obligations, and allegiances.

Go back and READ the historical works of Blackwell, Vattel, Christian Wolff, Gottfried Leibniz and Hugo Grotius. When you do, you'll notice the historical context of the whole (current) NATURAL BORN CITIZEN issue, and that it goes back further than 1787. You'll understand the historical background influenced the Framers and how they constructed the Constitution. There IS a connection.

It's safe to say that our forefathers weren't to keen on the idea of DUAL allegiance (or two masters). As the final paragraph of the Declaration of Independence heralds to the world on July 4, 1776:

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

Many of the same who signed the Declaration of Independence 11 years earlier wordsmithed the Constitution of the United States in 1787, inserting the infamous clause regarding the *unique* qualification of "Natural Born Citizen" for President (notably, a Senator and Representative is required be only a "Citizen"):

"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."

A scant three years later, the First Congress met to create the Naturalization Act of 1790. Here's a pertinent excerpt:

"And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond 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 ...

However, just five years later, Congress met to clarify certain parts of the previous Naturalization Act. Among other things, the Naturalization Act of 1795 removed the words "natural born" from this statement:

"And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States. Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States."

George Washington signed the Constitution, and was President for both the 1790 & 1795 Acts. He was quite aware of this change; many others were, too. If he disagreed with the clarification and change in the wording in the new act in 1795, President Washington would have vetoed the Naturalization Act of 1795.

Stop playing games. This cutesy, revisionary, "the-Constitution-is-a-Living-Document" crap is going to get someone hurt!


737 posted on 12/06/2008 9:54:49 AM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 699 | View Replies]

To: BP2

Welcome to 1933 Nazi Germany.


738 posted on 12/06/2008 9:56:48 AM PST by ExTexasRedhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 737 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane; BP2; calenel; LucyT

Tublecane- the Founding Fathers “in their wisdom” made the rules. I had them posted in my clubhouse in Spanky-form, which went something like this (I don’t have copy, the cereal box I wrote them on got musty):

It not what the Limey skunks or any other deranged legislative body so claims, its that jerk-o-la subjects to its law don’t fully renounce their citizenship and depart...and its just THE FATES that they can’t drop a baby on Uncle Sam’s head. Its the fates the lineage has to wait a generation.
It’s a very small penalty in the scheme of things, really. Its the rules: you come from voracious place attempting this insidious doctrine, we make you wait a generation before you and yours have the very highest right to run our country. Its really very simple. Dare say Spanky and Our Gang would have understood.


739 posted on 12/06/2008 10:05:10 AM PST by BonRad (As Rome goes so goes the world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 736 | View Replies]

To: BonRad

>>> Its the fates the lineage has to wait a generation.

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." -- Ronald Reagan


740 posted on 12/06/2008 10:11:26 AM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 739 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 701-720721-740741-760 ... 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