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.
Just keep her off the Viagra.
And make sure she shaves too!
LOL.
I am sure these cases have created a stir inside of the Court.
The MSM is comletely MUM. Gives me the creeps.
I beg to differ. It is the ONLY argument in Donofrio's case.
Again, from his blog:
My law suit argues that since Obama had dual citizenship "at birth" and therefore split loyalties "at birth", he is not a "natural born citizen" of the United States. A "natural born citizen" would have no other jurisdiction over him "at birth" other than that of the United States. The Framers chose the words "natural born" and those words cannot be ignored. The status referred to in Article 2, Section 1, "natural born citizen", pertains to the status of the person's citizenship "at birth".This is the only argument he talks about.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".
Obama has admitted to being a British subject "at birth". And as will be made perfectly clear below, his being subject to British jurisdiction "at birth" bars him from being eligible to be President of the United States.
As I have argued before the United States Supreme Court, the 14th Amendment does not confer "natural born citizen" status anywhere in its text. It simply states that a person born in the United States is a "Citizen", and only if he is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.
I got that edgy feeling.
Very interesting comment.
That would be Milli Vinilli who got busted for lip synching.
Which politicians do in speeches it seems.
Or is that speech synching?
(Fed lines by ear piece, better than having to think on your own.)
As for “I are serious cat”, I can probably find him.
If it comes out that Zero is not ‘natural born’ as the requirement states, this will be a real pickle for lots of people.
The BC is important, very important. Are you convinced that the Kenyan is his biological father? I’m not. If he is, then Leo’s case is on point, if not and the BC reveals that he has an American father, then its a different case.
I beg to differ. It is the ONLY argument in Donofrio’s case. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You will find that Donofrio has claimed that 3 candidates in NJ are not natural born citizens of the USA pursuant to Article II of the constitution.
What Donofrio argues on his blog is not necessarily what he might argue
on a Cert Pet hearing, if it ever gets that far, as we hope.
Again the context is not that British Law “trumps” US law. If Obama was a British Subject at Birth, that does not by itself exclude him from office. He would have to be in fact “born in Kenya” and not a “natural born American”.
This natural born requirement is a wild card which can result in him being a valid candidate, depending on what logic SCOTUS would apply to the case if they hear it.So Donofrio is not asking SCOTUS to abdicate its duty to “British Law.”
It is entirely possible for SCOTUS to decide that Obama, even though in fact born in Kenya, is a “natural born” American as the natural son of a US Citizen.
My son, born in Newfoundland, was issued a “Certificate of Birth of an American Citizen Born Abroad” by the US consulate in Halifax, Nova Scotia, for example.It is frequently issued for the sons and daughters of military personnel.
So even if Obama was indeed born in Kenya as a matter of fact, we are by no means out of the woods.Article II has had no SCOTUS law decided under its provisions. Its new legal territory.
So British Law does not “trump” US law. It is merely an argument that can be made, that Obama fits within the exclusionary version of an historical argument. Scotus does not necessarily have to apply that argument, and will decide for itself what “natural born “ actually means. No case has decided that before.
Lets hope it gets to the hearing stage.
I know, and I am not alone. This story should be in the News, and it is a measure of their social control by the Obama campaign that it is NOT.
It feels creepy.
And it feels like either the MSM is afraid of the consequences of publishing the story, or that they are that much in the bag for Obama. In eeither case, the 1st amendment rights of us all are in grave peril, more so than I had thought.
The facist evolution is moving faster than I would have thought possible.
A new generation of leaders with real courage must arise right now, or this republic is going down.
He would have to be in fact “born in Kenya” and not a “natural born American”.
Then why does Donofrio repeatedly claim that Obama's place of birth makes no difference, only his father's status and British law regarding citizenship?
My son, born in Newfoundland, was issued a “Certificate of Birth of an American Citizen Born Abroad” by the US consulate in Halifax, Nova Scotia, for example.It is frequently issued for the sons and daughters of military personnel.
According to Donofrio's arguments regarding McCain, your son's not a natural born citizen, either.
In those 24 states, electors cannot be punished until after they have voted. There is no provision for removing an elector before he votes.
And I was told that Obama picked his state electors from the party faithful.
I doubt that he chose the electors personally; more likely, they were chosen by the state campaign or the state Democratic Party.
They are truly "his" electors. If he's disqualified it would stand to reason that electors sworn to him would also be disqualified.
I don't see how that stands to reason. Voters chose the electors, and there's been no claim that the electors are ineligible. If Obama is declared ineligible, they will be told for whom they may not vote.
Because there is no evidence of what Obama's place of birth is. Obama has successfully obscured it, spending 100s of thousands of dollars to do so. SCOTUS may demand it.
According to Donofrio's arguments regarding McCain, your son's not a natural born citizen, either.>>>>>>>>>>>>
Maybe so, but the fact is that "natural born" can be interpreted for the first time ever in the history of the US Constitution. The hearing would not necessarily go against Obama even if he was born in Kenya, much of it depends on his mother's and father's status as American Citizens. We hardly even know as a fact who his father is, but its supposed to be Barrack Sr.
I have read Donofrio's Blog, and some of the pleading plates on standing.
I doubt that all of Donofrio's arguments are presented there in their entirety. The historical argument is as you say, a weak one. But even Donofrio does not know the facts of the case. The court has the power to have them. Then the real argument that is crucial to the case will take place.
The argument you have so skilfully outlined is merely designed to get Donofrio into court on the Cert Pet.I am sure the true facts, if known to the court will require a much different argument.
1) Where was Obama physically born?
2) How long was Mom in Kenya?
3) What was her intent when she went there from the USA?
4) Who is the biological dad?
5) What was dad's citizenship?
6) Was mom married to dad or was she a "common law" wife?
7) When mom went to Indonesia, was she a US citizen?
These are just some of the facts and questions that would have to come out.
And whatever facts are found will determine Donofrio's genuine argument on whether Obama was "natural born" in the United States. Also "Natural born" in the old sense meant " not adopted"
But we are getting ahead of ourselves. It may never get out of conference, but I am sure the Justices would love to make new law under an Article of the Constitution which has no case law to date.
In this case, according to what I read on PUMApac.org months ago, the OBAMA campaign selected the Dem electors across the country from loyal Obama campaign workers. That is unusual, and the PUMA gals were reiterating Obama's exclusivity and thuggish control over the DEM party electors, as not trusting Hillary supporters. Now we begin to see why.Obama anticipated that such an electoral college /Scotus challenge to his qualification might develop. Obama had successfully used a disqualification strategy against his Senate opponent in Illinois, and is supremely aware of how effective it can be.
Obama knew that his "natural born" in the "United States" was not a necessarily accurate conclusion one might reach if the facts were disclosed as to his birth details.
Indeed Obama spend hundreds of thousands of dollars obscuring those facts, if not over a million dollars altogether, depending on whether one includes his trip to Hawaii under the cover that he was visiting his dying grandmother, or not, during the last week of the election.
So it is not the usual scenario going into the electoral college. The Dem reps who will be there will all be dedicated Obama Campaign Committed Workers, not general party upper echelon reps. They will vote Obama regardless of what SCOTUS finds on Article II. This will require a direct intervention by the court in the process , with Federal Marshalls securing a SCOTUS Court Order, if it came to that. The stakes are very high, as high as Obama could make them.
Why is it that on Fox Online there is NOTHING on this on their SCOTUS page?
http://www.foxnews.com/national/supremecourt/index.html
No fair adding words to the Constitution. Natural born, as defined by U.S. law, allows for some people born outside the U.S. to qualify. But if Obama was born in the U.S. then he's a natural born U.S. citizen.
Its why Arnold Schwartznegar cannot run.
And why Obama can. If he was indeed born in Hawaii.
The Fox silence is deafening
But Scotus can make it much more complex, in potential. You and I prefer the plain meaning approach in terms of the reading of these words.
"Natural born" can open up a whole new approach in reference to parental lines of citizenship, if SCOTUS takes a different approach than the plain meanings of these Article II words. This is possible simply because no previous cases have been decided under the Article.
It would be a complete win for us if Obama had been adopted by his parents, in Kenya, i'e , if he was not the natural get of the body of his Mom, for example.
No one knows Obama's birth facts outside of anecdotal evidence. He has successfully obscured them om purpose.
SCOTUS can get hose facts, if they demand proof of them.
In any event, Obama is certainly not my president until he proves his qualifications under Article II. I would never accept him no matter how many Americans have voted for him.
Its all moot anyway, unless it gets OUT of conference.
However, in 1898 the Supreme Court stated their definition of natural born U.S. citizen in no uncertain terms - any person born in the U.S. and subject to its laws, modified for registered diplomats and enemy aliens. Citizenship of the parents didn't matter. The simple fact is that if Obama was born in Hawaii then he's a natural born U.S. citizen, end of story.
It would be a complete win for us if Obama had been adopted by his parents, in Kenya, i'e , if he was not the natural get of the body of his Mom, for example.
I have never even heard that rumored. Not in all the stories flying around the web.
SCOTUS can get hose facts, if they demand proof of them.
They won't.
In any event, Obama is certainly not my president until he proves his qualifications under Article II. I would never accept him no matter how many Americans have voted for him.
And if he suddenly appeared on TV tomorrow waving a copy of his birth certificate, would you believe him? Be honest.
As you so accurately point out, if he were born in Hawaii, why not produce it instead of hiring CAIRs legal team to defend the various law suits around the country?
Obama was unlikely to have been defacto born in Hawaii. Hawaiian law in effect says he was de jure born in Hawaii, as the law allows parents with one year plus of residence in Hawaii to file a foreign birth as if it had occurred in Hawaii. But will that satisfy the Article II requirement? Unlikely.
No Obama is not my president. He does not meet the Article II requirements under the plain meaning of those words.
He can wave whatever he wants, I am quite sick of his waving false paper on this issue.
Obama has hoodwinked America. America does not need a hoodwinking president who has no respect for the US Constitution or its people.
Your recollection is incorrect. The case is U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (169 U.S. 649). Justice Gray, writing for the majority, made the position clear:
"The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes."
The court is still very much out whether or not Obama can prove he's a natural born citizen.
Not at all. If Obama was born in the U.S. then he's a natural born U.S. citizen. By law. By Supreme Court ruling. By any standard you care to name.
It can even get more complicated if he renounced his US citizenship when he moved to Indonesia and apparently became an Indonesian citizen and never applied to reinstate his US citizenship when he returned to America.
At the point where Obama could have renounced his U.S. citizenship he was going to college in California and hadn't lived in Indonesia for seven or eight years. He performed none of the expatriating acts that would have renounced his citizenship.
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.