Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Thomas Breaks Tradition: Forces Supreme Court to Look at Obama Citizenship Case
THE AFRO-AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS ^ | 12/3/08 | James Wright, AFRO Staff Reporter

Posted on 12/03/2008 11:43:31 PM PST by BP2

 
U.S. Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas
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 Obama’s status as a United States citizen.

Thomas’s 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 court’s 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 state’s presidential ballot because of Donofrio’s own questions about Obama citizenship.

Donofrio is a retired lawyer who identifies himself as a “citizen’s advocate.” The AFRO learned that he is a contributor to naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com, a Web site that raises questions about Obama’s citizenship.

Calls made to Donofrio’s residence were not returned to the AFRO by press time.

Donofrio is questioning Obama’s 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, Obama’s 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.

Donofrio’s choice was Thomas. He submitted the emergency stay to Thomas’s 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 clerk’s office of the Supreme Court. A letter to the court explaining the reason for the emergency stay was filed on Dec. 1 at the clerk’s office.

Thomas’s 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 Thomas’s 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 Donofrio’s 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 Donofrio’s 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 court’s 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 Washington’s 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 Donofrio’s argument that Obama’s 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.”

 



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bho2008; birthcertificate; case; certifigate; constitution; court; lawsuit; naturalborncitizen; notthisshiitagain; obama; obamatransitionfile; obamatruthfile; president; scotus; supreme; supremecourt; take; talkradioignores; tinfoil
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 921-922 next last
To: Cincinna
It is certainly not "patently ridiculous", the issue of a non-citizen parent has legitimacy in the history of the laws regarding "natural born" citizenship. See for example post 373.
441 posted on 12/04/2008 3:56:21 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies]

To: kenboy
The Founders were interested in undivided allegiance. And when the 14th was passed -- divided allegiance came up again. See post 373.
442 posted on 12/04/2008 3:59:01 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 439 | View Replies]

To: FFranco

To all those that think mccain becomes president BIDEN becomes ACTTING President until a valid candidate can be selected by the CONGRESS.

There is actually provision in there for someone who pulls something like this. The fact is Howard Dean was to verify this guy was elligible to run. Its the responsiblity of the party.

I have very mixed feelings because if the court invalidates this guy its going to be a blood bath.


443 posted on 12/04/2008 4:02:01 PM PST by genxer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: kenboy

OK- We disagree.

I believe that the founders cared enormously about whether a presidential candidates’ parents had foreign citizenship. I also believe that the SCOTUS will see a need to define clearly the meaning and intent of eligibility, as disputed, and will allow a review.


444 posted on 12/04/2008 4:04:23 PM PST by freepersup (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 439 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216

Copy can be downloaded here:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters_downloads.html

Page 3 of the document.


445 posted on 12/04/2008 4:09:52 PM PST by antceecee (Bless us Father.. have mercy on us and protect us from evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 435 | View Replies]

To: Blu By U

Nope!


446 posted on 12/04/2008 4:11:31 PM PST by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
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.

Elg was not a natural born citizen. Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907. Her parents, who were natives of Sweden, emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906 and her father was naturalized here in that year. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 327 (1939).

Elg is a citizen of the United States. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 328 (1939).

1 foreigner parent (Sweden) and 1 US citizen parent (naturalized by US statute) and Born in Brooklyn, NY (USA)

This is not in my words - this was the case! She was considered a citizen!
447 posted on 12/04/2008 4:11:43 PM PST by jcsjcm (Upholding the Constitution til my last breath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
I reject the notion that denying children one little, tiny opportunity makes them second class citizens.

But that is exactly what it does.

Two children born on the same day at Balboa Naval Hospital in San Diego, California, USA. One child can aspire to the presidency if he desires. The other child, an American citizen, born and raised in the United States, cannot because his mother was an immigrant. The second child, because his mother immigrated here, is a de facto second-class citizen who does not have the same freedoms, rights and privileges as the first child despite the fact both children were born in the exact same place.

Doesn't sound very American, does it? Because it's not.

448 posted on 12/04/2008 4:12:00 PM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies]

To: meadsjn
You need to read more and troll less.

No, I need someone to point out exactly where the legal difference between the two is defined. Or where the Founding Father's advocated a two-tiered citizenship for people born here. Or how the 14th Amendment has suddenly disappeared. Those are the things I need to be reading about. Donofrio's twisted logic would disqualify a large number of the people who were born here, including probably Bobby Jindal. I'm not accepting Donofrio's theories, and I'm sure not willing to bet the Supreme Court signs on for Dred Scott II.

449 posted on 12/04/2008 4:12:10 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 436 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
It is only the way that I interpret what the founding fathers meant by natural born. You can be a citizen and be a Senator, but you must be a natural born to be the President or Vice President. It has to be a more stringent rule.

I am assuming do to the previous post I made about the Perkins case. Elg was only considered a citizen, not natural born since one of her parents was still a foreign citizen.

I think it is very difficult for us as laymen to really determine what the founders meant, but they did state natural born to US citizens (plural) which only could mean both parents. Again, not a lawyer!
450 posted on 12/04/2008 4:16:27 PM PST by jcsjcm (Upholding the Constitution til my last breath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

The founders were clear in why they set the bar higher for eligibility to be the President. There is a means for changing the Constitution.


451 posted on 12/04/2008 4:19:51 PM PST by freepersup (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]

To: kenboy

No, he is very much aware of the Wong Kim Ark case.

Please see the following link for some information about the case:

http://federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered.html

Pay particular attention to comments by Justice Stevens (he would be considered a ‘liberal’ judge) about this case:

“A refusal to consider reliable evidence of original intent in the Constitution is no more excusable than a judge’s refusal to consider legislative intent.”


452 posted on 12/04/2008 4:22:34 PM PST by wndawmn666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

The constitutional requirement for the President of the United States to be a natural-born citizen had one purpose according to St. George Tucker:

“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to he dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. … The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box.”


453 posted on 12/04/2008 4:22:34 PM PST by wndawmn666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 428 | View Replies]

To: Cincinna

Cincinna, you said:

“Where the parents were born matter not. If a person is born in the United States, he is a natural born American citizen.”
*************************

So, if Hitler’s parents were vacationing in the US while Mom was pregnant and little Adolph happened to be born in the US, he could serve as our President?


454 posted on 12/04/2008 4:22:34 PM PST by wndawmn666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies]

To: genxer

You are correct.

Section 3 of the 20th Amendment States:

If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified...”

This amendment is conceding to the possibility of a candidate making it as far as being President Elect and THEN being deemed unqualified.

Seems pretty outrageous that there is a provision for this, especially since there are only three requirements to be considered qualified.


455 posted on 12/04/2008 4:22:34 PM PST by wndawmn666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 443 | View Replies]

Allegiance of the parents most certainly mattered since they were responsible for the child.

What if two anti-American citizens from another country wanted to hatch a master plan to take over the USA.

By the logic used by some posters, these two anti-Americans could:

1. Plan a trip to America and make sure the woman gave birth on US soil.

2. Take said child out of the US and raise said child in an anti-American way.

3. Make sure said child is back in the US by age 21 so he/she can meet the 14 year residency requirement when he/she turns 35.

This person could then be eligible to serve as our President.


456 posted on 12/04/2008 4:22:35 PM PST by wndawmn666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 444 | View Replies]

To: bvw

Every person born on US soil is a US citizen, no matter where the parents were born, nor of what country they are citizens of.

If Obama was actually born in Hawaii, he himself is a natural born citizen.

If he wasn’t born in the US, he can’t be POTUS. The parents are irrelevant.

The question is why Obama can’t or won’t produce his borth certificate. My guess is that the father is unknown, or not the Kenyan he claims.

Without a birth certificate, none of us can prove natural born citizen status. Mine is in the Safety Deposit Box at the Bank, where is his? If you lose it, the local deoartment iof health will make a cope for you.


457 posted on 12/04/2008 4:23:48 PM PST by Cincinna (TIME TO REBUILD * JINDAL* PALIN * CANTOR 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies]

To: freepersup
The founders were clear in why they set the bar higher for eligibility to be the President. There is a means for changing the Constitution.

Nah. No reason to change it. I'm confident that our Constitution does not differentiate between "first-class" Americans and "second-class" Americans.

458 posted on 12/04/2008 4:24:46 PM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 451 | View Replies]

To: wndawmn666

That is a somewhat preposterous hypothetical.

According to the Constutution, yes,with few exceptions.


459 posted on 12/04/2008 4:27:44 PM PST by Cincinna (TIME TO REBUILD * JINDAL* PALIN * CANTOR 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies]

To: Cincinna

What few exceptions?


460 posted on 12/04/2008 4:30:28 PM PST by wndawmn666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 459 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 921-922 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson