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 ... 821-840841-860861-880 ... 921-922 next last
To: calenel

When did Obama go to Indonesia?


841 posted on 12/06/2008 8:22:16 PM PST by this is my country
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 840 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
"Right, the Republic is no more. Mob vote now runs the elections and folks like you feed the demise. Obama’s history doesn’t mean a thing. He got the most votes, legal or fraudulent, thus he is the new leader."

What is the purpose of this comment? Exactly what kind of people are 'people like [me]'?

842 posted on 12/06/2008 8:23:01 PM PST by calenel (The Democratic Party is a Criminal Enterprise. It is the Socialist Mafia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 808 | View Replies]

To: BP2

(1) American Citizen + (1) Foreign Citizen + Birth on US Soil = NATURAL BORN CITIZEN ?!

14 Stat. 27; Fourteenth Amendment, § 1; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649.

In a comprehensive review of the principles and authorities governing the decision in that case -- that a child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States ...

Moore, Int.Law Dig., Vol. III, p. 543.

Secretary William M. Evarts, in 1879, in an instruction to our Minister to Germany with respect to the status of the brothers Boisseliers who were born in the United States of German parentage said:

"Their rights rest on the organic law of the United States. . . . Their father, it is true, took them to Schleswig when they were quite young, the one four and the other two years old. They lived there many years, but during all those years they were minors, and during their minority they returned to the United States, and now, when both have attained their majority, they declare for their native allegiance and submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the country where they were born and of which they are native citizens. Under these circumstances, this Government cannot recognize any claim to their allegiance or their liability to military service, put forth on the part of Germany, whatever may be the municipal law of Germany under which such claim may be asserted by that Government."

Foreign Relations, 1906, p. 657.

"Assuming that Alexander Bohn [the father] never became a citizen of the United States, Jacob Bohn [the son] was born of German parents in the United States. According to the Constitution and laws of the United States as interpreted by the courts, a child born to alien parents in the United States is an American citizen, although such child may also be a citizen of the country of his parents according to the law of that country."

Content and references here. And, of course, excepting those persons not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the US due to the specific circumstances previously cited.

This assumes that no legal differentiation in US Law or the COTUS between 'native citizen', 'natural born citizen' and 'having citizenship at birth' can be found (as is thus far the case).

843 posted on 12/06/2008 9:10:24 PM PST by calenel (The Democratic Party is a Criminal Enterprise. It is the Socialist Mafia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 822 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
"You remind me of the little boy who wants something and will not take any answer other than the one he wants said. Your agenda is becoming plainer with every one of your posts. You are here to obfuscate and sow doubt and play obamanoid agitprop. No need to give you any further attention."

Wow. Well, then don't. You've been insinuating I had an agenda since your first post to me on this thread. I guess you sure proved that. Can't refute my arguments so you will engage in personal destruction. I'm sure I've seen that somewhere before. Oh, well.

844 posted on 12/06/2008 9:17:15 PM PST by calenel (The Democratic Party is a Criminal Enterprise. It is the Socialist Mafia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 825 | View Replies]

To: this is my country
"When did Obama go to Indonesia?"

As a minor. Attended grade school there. Maybe also as an adult, but I don't have details. I haven't touched the 'surrendered his US citizenship by using an Indonesian passport' discussion but there have been some comments on it.

845 posted on 12/06/2008 9:25:38 PM PST by calenel (The Democratic Party is a Criminal Enterprise. It is the Socialist Mafia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 841 | View Replies]

To: Newtiebacker; Polarik; Buckhead; All
"Let’s just say I found this guy more credible. That and it logically follows that were it actually a fake there would be lots more people coming forward, so many so it would be impossible to contain the deluge. It wouldn’t be limited to the minions of 911 ‘truthers.’"

You mean like with Damn Blather and C?BS!. Yeah, the media jumped all over that, right from the top. As I said, if you doubt Polarik's analysis, take it up with him. If, by your reference to '911 truthers', you are referring to Berg, well, sir, you are mistaken about my position. I do not believe that Berg OR Donofrio will accomplish more than to possibly get the SCOTUS to say who is responsible for verifying eligibility. I simply want to have Obama prove his eligibility if he can. I think Obama is a baby-killing, America-hating, scumbag, terrorist loving Marxist who intends to further undermine our country and way of life, and I am appalled that enough people voted for him for him to win the popular election. But if he is eligible to be POTUS then he is and I hope we survive the next two years so we can take Congress away from him and hopefully limit the damage he does. And if he is not...

Well, g'night, all.

846 posted on 12/06/2008 9:44:46 PM PST by calenel (The Democratic Party is a Criminal Enterprise. It is the Socialist Mafia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 835 | View Replies]

To: TChris

“For the gazillionth time... The Constitution requires that the President be a Natural born citizen, not just a citizen.”

sheesh, my kids were born by caesarian section, does that make them ineligible for POTUS?


847 posted on 12/06/2008 10:43:58 PM PST by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: calenel

So, calenel ...

- after all of your grand-standing, quoting Acts and Rulings that deal with naturalization, and such phrases as "born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States," seemingly ACKNOWLEDGING that Obama was born OUTSIDE of the US...

- hanging your hat on phrases like "is declared to be a citizen of the United States," VS something with TEETH, like "is declared to be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States" -- which we NEED, but which doesn't exist ...

- referencing your primary arguments from the 14th Amendment which was ratified by LESS than 3/5 of the 37 State Legislatures at the time it was codified, instead of 3/4 of the states as REQUIRED by the Constitution (now that's a completely different discussion there) ...

- ignoring the British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): "Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth"...

- intermingling "Jus soli" variations of "Citizen," "Native Born Citizen," "Natural Born Citizen," "Citizen by Birth," etc, while picking "Jus sanguinis" parts of Acts that clearly state things like: "provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States." Pulling parts from different Act from different eras...

- blowing off State Dept's FAMs, saying they're "just a Manual," even though they use strong legal references to carry out the nation's Constitutional and Statutory Immigration actions. People are denied or granted citizenship based upon the FAM's EVERYDAY.

- minimizing that Congress has tried to change the NBC issues of Article Two 26 times in the past 140 years, and never getting it out of Committee...

- knowing that before Chester Arthur, who almost surely & fraudulently hid his dual citizenship status while he was VP, the last "foreign born" President and VP help office more than 170 years ago....

- shooting down historical works our forefathers, like Vattel and Blackston, would have certainly used in their law practice and/or as reference to construct wording for the Constitution ... the SAME references that Justice Thomas uses to help interpret the Framer's actions...

... and then to top it off, the LEGAL Reference YOU use to define "natural born citizen" is Dictionary.com

LOL!


848 posted on 12/06/2008 11:27:56 PM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 830 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA
sheesh, my kids were born by caesarian section, does that make them ineligible for POTUS?

Darned right! ;-)

849 posted on 12/06/2008 11:28:39 PM PST by TChris (So many useful idiots...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 847 | View Replies]

To: calenel

“You mean like with Damn Blather and C?BS!. Yeah, the media jumped all over that, right from the top. As I said, if you doubt Polarik’s analysis, take it up with him. If, by your reference to ‘911 truthers’, you are referring to Berg, well, sir, you are mistaken about my position.’

Dunno if I am or not. I question ‘Polarik’s’ analysis for reasons posted previously. Dr. Neal Krawetz is a verifiable identity with a real reputation on the line. This Polarik shows up with a blotted-out face, a fake name and a voice only a Cylon could love.

No reflection on you, I just won’t believe it’s fake without more and better evidence. Also, that the Obama campaign would try to pass off a fake rather than simply deny access to everything—which was their MO all campaign—requires a better developed suspension of disbelief than I can currently muster.

In the case of Rather, his being hoodwinked (or trying to purposely pass off BS documents as legit) caused a firestorm that eventually cost him his job. In this case, everything I find questioning the legitimacy of the posted BC leads back to Techdude, Polarik or Berg eventually. Since the first is discredited by even his former adherents now, and the last is a 911 truther kook, that leaves Polarik, who might or might not be one of Berg’s ‘experts’ anyway. I would sure expect a much more varied and professional response from the vast multitude of netizens than *that* if the document were actually fake! :)

I can understand the fury of you and others regarding the absolute free pass Obama received—and continues to receive—from the mass media. It would certainly delight me to no end to find he was actually ineligible for the position; which would explain why he was hiding his life so obsessively the entire campaign. However what I’m finding is the case amounts to about the same as the Palin baby ‘controversy.’ Wishful thinking, willfully forgetting in the case of negative evidence that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and outright speculation. There’s just not much here, and the trail ultimately leads back to very dubious sources.

While it might be fun to tweak him a little, (which might well be CT’s motive here) kinda like carding him for beer at his age, in the end it amounts to the part of his life I’m least interested in—the one he had no control over. I wanna know what he did with all the money from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, what he was doing at Columbia, and for that matter what he was up to as an Illinois state senator. This clown is a complete cipher! :(


850 posted on 12/06/2008 11:35:09 PM PST by Newtiebacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 846 | View Replies]

To: calenel

http://www.citizensforaconstitutionalrepublic.com/P._A._Madison.html


851 posted on 12/07/2008 1:34:33 AM PST by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 837 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

“So then just who needs the Supreme Court now that our learned politicians have spoken and defined ‘natural born’ with such certainty in this great Resolution of theirs. Perhaps we just need to remind and hold their feet to the fire.”

Obama could easily just ignore the Supreme Court. Worked for Jackson and Lincoln!


852 posted on 12/07/2008 3:39:26 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 760 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

“the Senate has settled the issue for us all, determining in SR511 that ‘natural born’ meant a person born of two American citizen parents and on American territory.”

But McCain wasn’t born on U.S. soil, was he? Anyway, I’ve not read the resolution, but I doubt it said that ONLY people born of two American parents is a natural born citizen. I’m sure it simply said that McCain is a natural born citizen for that reason.


853 posted on 12/07/2008 3:42:41 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 762 | View Replies]

To: Blu By U

“So ultimately Mother England finaly has her DIRECT blood tied Native son in BHO and it seems ‘they’ will have DIRECT rule over America. His role must have been a long plan in the making.”

This is a parody, right? Or do you sincerely believe Obama is a pod person here to reinstall the Stamp Act?


854 posted on 12/07/2008 3:48:06 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 768 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

“I was unaward that the Supreme Court had ruled on the meaning of natural born citizen as it is used in the Constitution.”

You are, of course, aware that SCOTUS has ruled on who is a citizen at birth? Well, I’m no Dutch philosopher, but I think citizen at birth and natural born citizen are the same thing.


855 posted on 12/07/2008 3:51:20 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 772 | View Replies]

To: BonRad

“I’m not going to search it now but do go find Cornwallis’ resignation of his sword to Washington wherein he said England would effectively, finally win back the colonies...In doing so the masons in leadership on either side either between themselves and/or at behest of controllers called it a day, but knew another day would come.”

What took so long for the Masons to pop up on this thread?

By the way, for those of you who were in on the pot, the Masons beat the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, the International Communist Conspiracy, the Jews, and the Venusians to win control of America. Pay up!


856 posted on 12/07/2008 3:55:36 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 777 | View Replies]

To: BP2

“The stuff conspiracies are made of...”

You say that like it’s a good thing.

By the way, Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy and Obama is most likely a natural born citizen.


857 posted on 12/07/2008 3:57:46 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 778 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

“That would be essential. I don’t mind a tourist’s or student’s child becoming American, but if you are not legally in this country, your children should NOT become citizens. I believe that you should not even get social services, free schooling, or welfare. It’s killing us.”

That is exactly the sort of thing, I believe, the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause of the 14th amendment could refer to. Much more likely that than dual citizenship, anyway.


858 posted on 12/07/2008 4:02:58 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 784 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

“Also, which other presidential candidates were born outside the country, and why were they ‘understood’ to be eligible?”

Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona territory, and that was controversial, I think, since Arizona didn’t have statehood. The general consensus was that since he was born on land under the juridiction of the federal government he was elligible.


859 posted on 12/07/2008 4:06:03 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 786 | View Replies]

To: BP2

“In the role of Commander in Chief, it is not enough to be above reproach. One must be above the suspicion of reproach. For example, given the emotionalism shown during the Elian Gonzalez case, would a Cuban-born President be perceived as objective in handling a military conflict with Cuba?”

The Constitution doesn’t say “No person except a natural born Citizen above the suspicion of reproach...” This is a matter that can be handled during the election.


860 posted on 12/07/2008 4:10:21 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 787 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 821-840841-860861-880 ... 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