Posted on 11/20/2008 8:28:49 AM PST by Candor7
On December 5, 2008, only ten days before the electoral college votes, the nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will meet in private to review Obama's citizenship status.
Leo Donofrio's case, "Leo C. Donofrio, v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, United States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A407," regarding Obama's citizenship has reached a new level. The case has been "distributed for conference."
This docketing today by the court should send ripples of fear through the Obama camp. Obama has been proceeding at lightening speed to put together a cabinet and take possession of the White House with the hope that he won't have to answer the question of whether or not he was "at birth" a "natural born citizen."
Every major news network, print and cable news like FOX, CNN and MSNBC, have ignored all the court cases challenging Obama's eligibility as sore losers or conspiracy theories. It might be in their best interest at this point to report this critically important meeting to take place on December 5, 2008, or lose what little credibility they have left.
If four of the nine Justices vote to hear the case in full review, oral argument may be ordered. The conference is scheduled for December 5, 2008, ten days before the meeting of the Electoral College…
The case originally sought, pre-election, to have the names of Barack Obama, John McCain, and Roger Calero removed from New Jersey ballots, and for a stay of the "national election" pending Supreme Court review of whether those candidates were eligible under the Constitution as natural born Citizens, as is required by Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States.
Leo Donofrio brought his case from a lower New Jersey court to the NJ Supreme Court -- was denied -- and then he filed an emergency stay application in the United States Supreme Court on Nov. 3, 2008, before the Honorable Associate Justice David Souter. Justice Souter denied the emergency stay application on Nov. 6.
Leo Donofrio renewed the application, as per Supreme Court Rule 22.4, to the Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas by way of Express mail on Nov. 14. The application arrived at the Supreme Court on Nov. 17 and was submitted directly to Justice Thomas.
On Nov. 19, the case was docketed for full conference of all nine Justices and scheduled for December 5, 2008. It is not known at this time the exact details of how the case came to be "DISTRIBUTED for Conference".
Background on "The Justices Conference" is discussed as follows by the Supreme Court Historical Society:
"No outsider enters the room during conference. The junior Associate Justice acts as "doorkeeper," sending for reference material, for instance, and receiving it at the door...
Five minutes before conference time, 9:30 or 10 a.m., the Justices are summoned. They exchange ritual handshakes and settle down at the long table. The Chief sits at the east end; the other Justices sit at places they have chosen in order of their seniority…
The Chief Justice opens the discussion, summarizing each case. The senior Associate Justice speaks next, and comment passes down the line. To be accepted for review, a case needs only four votes, fewer than the majority required for a decision on the case itself. Counsel for the litigants are directed to submit their printed briefs so that each Justice has a set several weeks before argument.
I think Donofrio's case was turned down by Justice Souter before being picked up by Justice Thomas for conference. I thought that Berg's case was still before the court. My recollection is that Obama has until some time in early December to respond to Berg's suit. Whether or not the case progresses will depend on that. I could be worng - there are so many of these suits out there it's hard to keep track.
I bet the SCOTUS hearing on Dec. 5th will be hot and heavy.
I am laughing at the MSM now!
Uproariously.
We have SOCOPED them again!
Artiucle II of the Constitution.
Natural born within the USA.
Required.
Completely different legal question.
Its why Arnold Schwartznegar cannot run.
Found this on Texasdarlin’ Blog:
“Don’t be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues. They are irrelevant to Senator Obama’s ineligibility to be President. Since Barack Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama’s birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen “at birth”, just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn’t be eligible to be President.
The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were also British Citizens and that’s why the Framers declared that, while they were Citizens of the United States, they themselves were not “natural born Citizens”. Hence their inclusion of the grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution:
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;
That’s it right there. (Emphasis added.)
The Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn’t want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country. The Framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves. They did, after all, create the Constitution. But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the Framers and Colonists fought so hard in the American Revolution to be free of.
The Framers declared themselves not eligible to be President as “natural born Citizens”, so they wrote the grandfather clause in for the limited exception of allowing themselves to be eligible to the Presidency in the early formative years of our infant nation.
But nobody alive today can claim eligibility to be President under the grandfather clause since nobody alive today was a citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted.
The Framers distinguished between “natural born Citizens” and all other “Citizens”. And that’s why it’s important to note the 14th Amendment only confers the title of “Citizen”, not “natural born Citizen”. The Framers were Citizens, but they weren’t natural born Citizens. They put the stigma of not being natural born Citizens on themselves in the Constitution and they are the ones who wrote the Document.
BARACK OBAMA HAS ADMITTED ON FIGHT THE SMEARS THAT HE POSSESSED BRITITSH CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH. HE’S TOAST.
So basically the argument is that British and Kenyan law overrides US law in the determination of who is and isn’t a natural born citizen of the United States. Is that right?
FR has the MSM massively scooped on this News!!
De Nile River is a long twisty float to oblivion!
Who has the photo of "This is a serious thread"?
This whole issue is not about citizenship, but about WHERE he was born, according to article II of the Constitution.
"natural born in the Unted States" is a requirement of any president.
JAMBO!!!
ROTFLMAO!!
Gem, you are a Gem!
We know that already. The reason for the antic positions is to hide the exchange of the roll of $100s. Additionally you have to insert the hidden drip line from your client's bank account and HELOC in the event further transfusions are needed. :)
They won't wait until the decision comes down.
They will attempt to cow SCOTUS.
I hope it doesn't go that way, but it just might.
The MSM is afraid of breaking the story.
I got that edgy feeling.
No, it's not. It's evidence that British law (and subsequent Kenyan law) said that the child of a British (or Kenyan) citizen was a British (or Kenyan) citizen, regardless of where they were born. Donofrio says as much in his blog:
"Since Barack Obama's father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama's birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen "at birth", just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn't be eligible to be President.Donofrio also says:
The other numerous law suits circling Obama to question his eligibility fail to hit the mark on this issue. Since Obama was, "at birth", a British citizen, it is completely irrelevant, as to the issue of Constitutional "natural born citizen" status, whether Obama was born in Hawaii or abroad. Either way, he is not eligible to be President. Should Obama produce an original birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii, it will not change the fact that Obama was a British citizen "at birth".
In other words, Donofrio's claim is that British law trumps US law in the determination citizenship of persons born in the United States.
Ok
Thanks, LucyT
You are doing a great job.
Major Ping.
Courts aften rely on the foreign law to determine lawful status within the legal context of the foreign venue. We do it all the time in inter state extradition proceedings.
Whether Obama is a British Subject or not is only a supporting argument to determining whether he does satisfy Article IIs requirement of a President of the United States.
Plenty of Americans born to British immigrants in the USA have been British Subjects.
I do not believe we can say that Donofrio wants SCOTUS to abdicate its fact finding under Article II of the US constitution to a British or Kenyan Court of Law, or foreign law.
All that SCOTUS will need to know is where in fact Obama was born, the situs of his birth, and whether he was "natural born."
The fact that Obama has admitted former Kenyan citizenship tends to support that Obama was in fact born in Kenya, in the absence of any other information.
The decision of SCOTUS will flow from there.
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.