Posted on 12/04/2008 7:50:38 PM PST by Lmo56
To the Honorable Justices:
There is an application (Donofrio v. Wells) that is scheduled for conference by the Court on 5 December 2008. Regardless of established Court standards of procedure, this application deserves to be heard by the Court en banc since it concerns the cornerstone of all U.S. Law – the United States Constitution. It questions the very foundation upon which our republic was built and it inquires as to the intentions of the Founding Fathers.
In the year 2000, the Court ruled in Bush v. Gore that “the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College … When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter … The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise … “
The prescription in this application (Donofrio v. Wells) was that a voter was allowed to cast his vote for a candidate “certified” as eligible upon the ballot. However, as evidenced by an ineligible candidate (one Roger Calero) having been on the ballot, the entire certification of the ballot is called into question. Due to the ruling in Bush v. Gore, coupled with the rights and powers granted to citizens by the 9th and 10th Amendments, an individual voter should be able to challenge the validity of a candidate’s eligibility to hold office.
Currently, U.S. law provides for citizenship by jus soli and by jus sanguinis. However, some of the constitutional questions presented by this application are:
1. When a child obtains citizenship at birth by jus soli on U.S. soil, but is born to a U.S. citizen mother and an alien father, does it create dual nationality for the citizen through jus soli AND jus sanguinis – if the alien father’s foreign sovereignty allows it?
2. If dual nationality is created in 1), above, can it be presumed that the citizen has undivided allegiance and loyalty to the United States at all times and in all places?
3. If dual nationality is created in 1), above, can it be presumed that the citizen DOES NOT have undivided allegiance and loyalty to the United States when NOT on U.S. soil?
4. If the answer to 1) is “YES”, the answer to 2) is “NO”, and the answer to 3) is “YES”, is a citizen with dual nationality necessarily disqualified to be eligible to the Presidency to the United States?
5) Assuming the answers given in 4), is the definition of a “natural born” citizen one who is born jus soli on U.S. soil AND born jus sangunis of U.S. citizen parents?
These questions have never been adequately addressed by the Court in over 200 years. It is time for the Court to address them.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men (and a woman) do nothing."
Best Regards,
Publius 2008
I AM NOT A LAWYER—
but the letter asks some valid questions.
Hows the weather in Pahrump?
I just heard a few minutes ago on a radio program that each of the 9 justices, as of today, have received 149,000 faxes and letters encouraging them to hear this case.
“5) Assuming the answers given in 4), is the definition of a “natural born” citizen one who is born jus soli on U.S. soil AND born jus sangunis of U.S. citizen parents?”
It seems to me the answer to 5) above is yes no matter what the answers given in 4).
Is it possible the author meant to say: “…is the definition of a “natural born” citizen LIMITED to one…”?
The Supremes are very much aware of the answers to the questions, but will they have the courage to make the right decision?
And this question: In politics, we are told that it is the seriousness of the question, and not the evidence of a crime, that justifies an investigation by Congress. Will the liberal justices also follow that logic in requiring the President elect to prove he is qualified to serve as POTUS?
If not this citizen, then who can challenge this issue in the courts?
Will the liberal justices also follow that logic in requiring the President elect to prove he is qualified to serve as POTUS?
***
5 of the 9 current justices sided with the majority in Bush v. Gore (and the cited opinion) mentioned in the open letter ...
So, why didn’t you post this article?
So, why didn’t you post this article?
Wrong Publius - I wrote and posted it ... a bit of Federalist Paper irony ...
I’m starting to believe that if the case goes forward the biggest fallout will be from the naysayers eating crow and not the ‘civil war II’.
The question is whether the court will rule that Obama's natural-born-citizenship status is irrelevant to the question of whether he should be allowed to take the throne, or whether he must provide at least some real evidence of eligibility. I would expect that at least some judges would recognize the question of eligibility is highly relevant, but I'm not confident that five will do so.
I hope that Obama is eligible, and proves it. I really really hope that.
A distant second choice would be that Obama is in fact eligible, but is allowed to flex his muscles by refusing to prove it, and nobody calls him on it.
An even more distant third choice is that Obama is in fact ineligible, and is recognized as such.
The worst case would be that the presidency is given to a man who knew he couldn't attain it legitimately, and so did so via subversion, fraud, and intimidation.
Do you think many of the people who are calling upon Obama to prove his eligibility are hoping that he's not eligible? I sure ain't.
If Obama can present prima facie evidence that he was in fact born within the U.S., the Court is not going to find him ineligible. Period.
***
That is a VERY big risk - if they are willing to take it ...
For if they do, GRAVE consequences MIGHT occur in the future ...
For example:
Two alien foreigners apply for permanent asylum in the United States and have a child.
But, they have a religious or political ideology ADVERSE to the United States ...
The child, by the precedent of Obama, is eligible to be POTUS ...
The child is schooled in his native ideology and is loyal to it, but he is “groomed” publicly to run for office ...
He attains the Presidency - THEN WHAT?
Sounds far-fetched? ... NOT IN THIS DAY AND AGE ...
I am. I think it is imperative that the court take up this issue. There can be no more important issue than making certain that the president of the united states meets the necessary qualifications for the office. It is not a hard thing to prove up those qualifications. But America cannot disregard the provisions of the Constitution merely because it is politically expedient to do so.
Frankly I hope Obama can prove that he is eligible, as I fear that if he is not eligible, then Nancy Pelosi very well could be sworn in on January 20, 2009.
The Supreme Court should and must accept the case and request that Obama submit evidence that would prove to a reasonable degree of certainty (i.e., more likely than not) that he was a natural born citizen at the time of his birth. The court need not be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, but the burden should be on Obama to clear the cloud over his citizenship issue. If he can't do it, then he should not be president. I think the court will bend over backwards to find that he is eligible, but they need to examine the evidence and make a ruling. To refuse to hear the case is to refuse to uphold the Constitution. I hope they realize that fact. I fear that they don't care.
The child would be worse than Obama, how exactly?
The Court is not going to make anything that could be considered a judgment call against Obama or any other candidate. The most I can see them doing is ruling that Obama must provide at least a prima facie demonstration of eligibility. I would not expect the Court to say whether Obama has introduced sufficient evidence to accomplish that, unless he offers up no admissible evidence whatsoever (as is currently the case).
“Frankly I hope Obama can prove that he is eligible, as I fear that if he is not eligible, then Nancy Pelosi very well could be sworn in on January 20, 2009.”
I admire & respect your standing and thankyou for posting your take on this issue.
However, I sense a profound problem in your possible outcome of events in that; I really don’t think the people will be satisfied knowing/assuming this election was part of a “game” sort of speak. To stretch the electorial limits, just to further an off the wall idea/brainstorm someone had.
If your scenario plays out, that’s exactly how the people will take it IMHO. It would be better to void the entire election and retain the current administration untill a new election could take place.
Or at the very least allow Joe Biden to assume the position and refill the VP slot. Possibly with Nancy ?
BRAVO
And you hope he can show proof he's eligible?
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.