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.
I’m not a troll, but I am a lawyer. In the U.S. v. Ark case, the Supreme Court stated that at common law, a natural born subject was anyone born in the dominions of the King, even if both parents were non-British subjects. The exceptions to the rule are the ones laid out in the Ark case, such as ambassadors, people merely visitors, etc.
It seems to me that the Framers would have been very familiar with the term natural born subject under the common law. Because the U.S. is not a monarchy, there are no U.S. “subjects”, but rather citizens. Thus, natural born citizen probably means the same thing as under the common law - a child born within the territory of the United States, regardless of the nationality of the parents, with limited exceptions.
In my opinion, Donofrio’s case will fail because natural born citizen will be interpreted as meaning the same thing as natural born subject at common law. Of course, that assumes SCOTUS even takes the case.
My fear is that even if SCOTUS takes Donofrio’s case, it will define “natural born citizen,” but leave the issue of the birth certificate untouched.
“’If youre born in the United States, you are a citizen of the US. Period.’
Totally correct!
We can all be citizen, even I born in DK!!
But we are NOT ‘natural’ born citizen, and because of that, neither I or Hussein are eligible to become President, pure and simple and PERIOD!!!”
That makes no sense. How can you be born a citizen and not be a natural born citizen?
also, its not a matter of tradition, its a matter of constitutional law, which is absolute and not subject to opinion or interpretation.
very true. that is a whole oher issue about illegal immigrants that is too often not reported by the s called media.
true, but not necessarily a natural born citizen.
Neither is being a naturalized citizen, but neither of these comply with the intent of the founders' that US presidents should have no divided loyalties.
...and if barry’s daddy wsa a british subject, then the question is if baby barry was subject to the british crown
indeed..so if bho is disqualified, mccain would be next on the hit list. if both are unqualified, then the house chooses the next POTUS amoung the next top 3 electoral vote getters.
well said.
“However, he’s not a ‘natural born citizen.’ His father was a Kenyan. Google the law: Perkins v. ELG, 307 U.S. 325 (1939).”
Nothing at all about that case implies that Obama is not a natural born citizen. If anything, it implies the opposite. Elg was born in the U.S. to Swedish parents, who subsequently took her to Sweden. SCOTUS ruled that her parents’ decision to claim Swedish citizenship for her did not prevent her from reclaiming U.S. citizenship later. Thus, she had the right to be a U.S. citizen all along. Since the only reason she had a claim at all to U.S. citizenship was that she was born here, she was a natural born citizen.
Besides, this case doesn’t apply to Obama, since he was raised on U.S. soil. Now, there is some confusion as to whether Obama may at some point have gained Indonesian citizenship without recaliming his U.S. citizenship. But that is not at issue in the case at hand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QdyLOUHz-A&feature=related
I expect that the Axelrod goonsquad will be sending their army out over the weekend to try and create the image that this is kookery ... astroturfing of the worst kind don'tchaknow. criminal bastards
Enjoy your likely very short time on FR.com.
“I cant believe you put these two thoughts back to back. Either you know or you dont know. If you dont know as you indicate here then how do you know the case cannot be won?”
Oh, for pete’s sake, that’s just a manner of speaking. You could say that the phrase “I’m pretty sure” is a rhetorical device. Certainty usually makes for more powerful writing, but no one wants to look like they’re dictating from on high about matters high and low.
“Born to two US citizens on US soil = Natural born status.
Born to 1 US citizen and 1 Foreign citizen on US soil = US Citizen.”
Please tell me what law discriminates between these two designations. I have never heard of anyone being born a citizen who isn’t a natural born citizen.
“How do you know that Obama was born on US soil?”
First of all, I don’t. Secondly, as far as I know, this case assumes that Obama was born in Hawaii.
“’pretty sure’ and ‘solid tradtion’ do not apply when interpreting the Constitution.”
Good thing I’m not a Supreme Court justice, then. I’ll leave it to them to bring forth the actual laws.
I am well aware of what the passage states.
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.