Posted on 12/03/2008 11:43:31 PM PST by BP2
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 Obamas status as a United States citizen.
Thomass 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 courts 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 states presidential ballot because of Donofrios own questions about Obama citizenship.
Donofrio is a retired lawyer who identifies himself as a citizens advocate. The AFRO learned that he is a contributor to naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com, a Web site that raises questions about Obamas citizenship.
Calls made to Donofrios residence were not returned to the AFRO by press time.
Donofrio is questioning Obamas 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, Obamas 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.
Donofrios choice was Thomas. He submitted the emergency stay to Thomass 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 clerks office of the Supreme Court. A letter to the court explaining the reason for the emergency stay was filed on Dec. 1 at the clerks office.
Thomass 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 Thomass 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 Donofrios 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 Donofrios 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 courts 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 Washingtons 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 Donofrios argument that Obamas 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.
“Exactly. McCain, Hillary and Obama, the entire Senate, knew that McCain was not a natural-born citizen, so they tried to make it so by erasing the Constitution ...”
It is alarming. To think that SCOTUS would strike this case and add to their malfeasance would be elevated treason.
Thank God for true patriots.
I was thinking exactly along these lines. Is there any capacity for a "volunteer body guard" auxiliary force for government officials? I would gladly take up defending Justice Thomas. He seems as out of place as Ron Paul: A true patriot in a position of government power.
That's the way I see this also. The Donofrio case is not about whether or not any of the candidates is a natural born citizen, but rather about whether or not the NJ SoS did its job of certifying that the candidates met the Constitutional requirements.
The case for natural born citizenship will be round 2.
Let’s hope Donofrio’s team goes down that line of questioning if this does go to trial. But if they get bogged down over the definition of “natural born” as a matter of Obama’s father nationality, without going into the real issue (IMO) involving his actual place of birth, then I have little hope for this case.
Thanks for answering my questions - I was hoping someone would respond and validate my thinking on this.
Let’s hope Donofrio’s team goes down that line of questioning if this does go to trial. But if they get bogged down over the definition of “natural born” as a matter of Obama’s father nationality, without going into the real issue (IMO) involving his actual place of birth, then I have little hope for this case.
Thanks for answering my questions - I was hoping someone would respond and validate my thinking on this.
For some reason, ...my fuzzy memory is saying Biden....but I am not sure.
Go back to your hole, nasty n00b ... and tell David Axelrod that the astroturf campaign doesn’t work at conservative sites like FreeRepublic.
Thanks.
We want the same goal.
Thank you for posting this historical data on this subject, and for the scholarly presentation.
Most of us here are only just beginning to get an education in these matters, so posts of this nature help tremendously in raising the understanding of the group.
I’ve been thinking that given the intense interest in this issue, that it would be great if FR had a resource page of some sort on the site, where everyone could go to study the legal and historical documents applicable to this issue.
It would certainly cut down on all of the multiple postings of case law and constitutional passages on every thread.
Thanks again for your help.
An illegitimate and illegal President cannot issue a pardon that holds any validity. The Electors would still be guilty of Treason. One traitor cannot pardon another.
Have you been taking lessons from MiaT?
...The U.S. requires immigrants applying for naturalization to renounce their previous citizenship..
This is just not factual accurate. The US does not require that immigrants renounce their previous citizenship. There are tens of millions of legal Americans holding dual-citizenship (my own mother included) for this very reason. The US doesn’t encourage it, but does not in any way, forbid it.
Sorry!
Here is the quotation from Article 1 of the US 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; 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.
(that second comma is troubling)
There is obviously a great need for the SC to clarify this issue. As you said, it's unlikely that a child born in the US through some unintended misfortune, to foreign tourist parents would be given American citizenship, but I don't know that it wouldn't be so.
There's obviously far too much ambiguity in the law. It needs to be clarified and settled, once and for all.
Hear hear.
Thank you Justice Thomas.
ha! It’s not only “not fair”, it’s “racist”, ya know. ;)
We obviously need for the Supreme Court to review this area of the Constitution and issue a clarifying judgment. There is just so much confusion over what ought to be a fairly straight-forward thing.
It would seem to me, that in the interest of simplicity, and to bring our practices in alignment with the thinking of the Founders and the Constitution, that it should be clearly stated (finally) that a Natural Born Citizen, is defined as any person born on US soil to two parents who were themselves born on US soil.
In addition, it should be stated that those parents can not have not renounced their US citizenship, and should have lived within US territorial jurisdiction for a specified period of time prior to the birth of the child.
In addition, the SC ought to clear up the mis-interpretation of the 14th Amendment as it regards the automatic granting of US citizenship to children born of foreign nationals on US soil.
This is an abomination, and has gone on far too long. It is a long-term threat to to our national security, as it has encouraged and enabled the establishment of what can be rightly described as a foreign "nation" within the confines of the continental US. This simply cannot be in accordance with what the Founders intended for the future of our country.
We truly need some clarity on the entire issue of US 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.