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.
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.
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.
Copy can be downloaded here:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters_downloads.html
Page 3 of the document.
Nope!
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.
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.
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.
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 judges refusal to consider legislative intent.
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 Pandoras Box.”
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?
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.
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.
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.
Nah. No reason to change it. I'm confident that our Constitution does not differentiate between "first-class" Americans and "second-class" Americans.
That is a somewhat preposterous hypothetical.
According to the Constutution, yes,with few exceptions.
What few exceptions?
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.