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 ... 461-480481-500501-520 ... 921-922 next last
To: montesquiue; Jim Robinson

Post #58 brought tears to my eyes. Thanks.


481 posted on 12/04/2008 5:18:25 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: BP2

My scenario.

Obama gets himself elected (done) then we find that he’s ineligible to hold office. The clowns in DC don’t want to rock the boat and manage to let the issue slide.

In a few years a known foreign born presidential wannabe shows up at the supreme court demanding his/her “right” to run and cites the illegitimate Obama presidency as precedent with no harm done. By then the court will have shifted to the left and they will rule that the constitution is outdated or some similar crap. It will be someone from a “harmless” nation like Canada that people can more easily accept.

We end up with Jenny Granholm running in the 2016 election. You might notice that she sure seems to be in the process of being groomed for the job.

by 2020 we have a presidential free for all with every Achmed, Hans, and Vladimir running for president of the USA. By that time we’ll probably be allowing citizens in some other nations vote in our elections anyway.


482 posted on 12/04/2008 5:22:56 PM PST by cripplecreek (The poor bastards have us surrounded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 464 | View Replies]

To: mrs9x

For me - a definition of natural born would be a good thing, but yes, the birth certificate verification should be required of any candidate for POTUS. I’m bothered by the lack of a process for this verification that protects the interests of the people and the rule of law - our Constitution.


483 posted on 12/04/2008 5:24:18 PM PST by antceecee (Bless us Father.. have mercy on us and protect us from evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: Drew68; GreatOne; LucyT; ExTexasRedhead; theothercheek; David; pissant; STARWISE; BIOCHEMKY; ...
We do not have second-class citizens in this country.

That's the kind of mantra that lefties are prone to use to obfuscate the Constitutional issue in the Obama matter.

We do have different classes of citizens only in so far as it relates to qualifications for the presidency (or vice presidency). To be president, you need not only be a citizen, but a "natural born citizen."

However, there is debate within the legal community and within the public in general as to what exactly "natural born citizen" means. Most would consider your children under the circumstances you described as "natural born citizens," constitutionally eligible to be president once they meet the other requirements. But while Philip Berg and some of the other plaintiffs in these suits would probably agree with that, Leo Donofrio might not.

484 posted on 12/04/2008 5:32:44 PM PST by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: kenboy

Please note that our Framers had just liberated themselves from British Common Law. Why on Earth would they go ahead and adopt Common Law rule here?

If you are interested in why we don’t follow common law please take a few minutes to read this:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

Scroll down to: LEO DONOFRIO COMMENTS ON JUDAH BENJAMIN ARTICLE CONCERNING NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AND THE COMMON LAW

It’s a simple explanation.


485 posted on 12/04/2008 5:33:14 PM PST by wndawmn666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 472 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
That makes no sense. How can you be born a citizen and not be a natural born citizen?

I and Hussein are NOT "natural" born, which requires that the two (2) parents, (father and mother) both are U.S. citizen. Hussein's father was a British subject in 1961!

Hussein's mother was not old enough (18,) she needed to be 19 to give him citizenship, nevertheless Obama Sr's British citizenship is the crux that Hussein cannot overcome according to the Constitution!!

Therefore we are both only "naturalized" and not enough to qualify!!!

486 posted on 12/04/2008 5:34:26 PM PST by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: Cincinna
They are a citizen if they are born in the US.

As you know, Obama has never shown any bona fide documentation that he was born on US soil.

487 posted on 12/04/2008 5:36:38 PM PST by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 465 | View Replies]

To: BP2

This really does leave him open to blackmail. I have read suppositions that Hillary has the goods on him and this is why she is in, along with all her old buddies.

Interesting times.


488 posted on 12/04/2008 5:39:51 PM PST by Jet Jaguar (Who would the terrorists vote for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 464 | View Replies]

To: BP2
Our nation's never survived riots...

I trust that you merely made that flagrantly false statement sarcastically to support your argument.

489 posted on 12/04/2008 5:40:58 PM PST by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 464 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

This really does leave him open to blackmail.

Yep.

If you ever had hold a Top Secret security clearance, you'd know the government looks DEEP in your background, to see if you have any skeletons in the closet.

They'd check your criminal record, to see if you might have committed acts that show a pattern of deceit.

They'd check your credit, to see if you might be a target of bribery.

And they'd also check for other things, such as marital infidelity and falsified records -- to ensure you won't be blackmailed by the enemy to become their servant, or worse yet, their spy.

The problem is that people elected to office are NOT subject to such screening...


490 posted on 12/04/2008 5:48:10 PM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 488 | View Replies]

To: BP2

The problem is that people elected to office are NOT subject to such screening...

Yep.


491 posted on 12/04/2008 5:49:40 PM PST by Jet Jaguar (Who would the terrorists vote for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 490 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Doesn't help at all, in fact it ignores the question. The important matter is how one defines the difference, if difference there be, between citizen at birth and natural born citizen... The Constitution doesn't do it. What does?

Listen friend. If you honestly want to know the answer to your questions as badly as you're pretending, then you'd find the answers yourself, or consult someone other than an ordinary citizen expressing his personal views on a website.

I admitted to you three posts back that I may have spoken in error, but you continue to try to back me into a corner over this legal question.

You know I'm not a legal scholar, and it's quite possible that you aren't either, so what's your real intention here?

I have my opinion, however it was formed. I'm not a walking encyclopedia of legal facts, and don't have every reference I've read to hand, nor have I committed their locations to memory. I've read what I've read, and am speaking as frankly and truthfully as I can, with what I've digested.

492 posted on 12/04/2008 5:51:41 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 475 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade
...if I was a betting man, I'd say that SCOTUS will not resolve this.

If I were a betting man, I wouldn't take the bet either way at this point, but I would be rubbing my lucky rabbit's foot and praying that they do the right thing.

493 posted on 12/04/2008 5:55:17 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK

Ping to #490.


494 posted on 12/04/2008 6:00:31 PM PST by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 490 | View Replies]

To: SerafinQ
...and if barry’s daddy wsa a british subject, then the question is if baby barry was subject to the british crown

Some here have said that the US determines citizenship for its inhabitants irrespective of the citizenship determinations of other countries. In other words, if you qualify under US law as being a US citizen, it doesn't affect your legal citizenship in this country if some other government grants you citizenship as well.

It's tough, I know. We're all getting an education here, including me.

495 posted on 12/04/2008 6:01:34 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 389 | View Replies]

To: genxer
"I would run. I”m a citizen, just born in italy so i don’t qualify."

I'm impressed! Most Italians I know can't type or speak until they're several years old. Besides candidates also have to be over 35 years old. ;^)

496 posted on 12/04/2008 6:08:38 PM PST by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 438 | View Replies]

Good on Justice Thomas. I know some people don’t like him because he doesn’t look like all the other Justices...


497 posted on 12/04/2008 6:12:37 PM PST by NeoConfederate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

Good one,how appropriate!


498 posted on 12/04/2008 6:12:57 PM PST by rodguy911 (HOME OF THE FREE BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE--GO SARAHCUDA !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 467 | View Replies]

To: BP2

Here’s a scenario for those of you who are afraid to “rock the boat”
-

Wow!! Scary thought. Very sobering but also very realistic. We are hated by many.


499 posted on 12/04/2008 6:13:54 PM PST by montesquiue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 464 | View Replies]

To: mrs9x

Have you seen the comments posted here from Justice Scalia, regarding the common law vs constitutional law?

He is quoted as saying that “the common law is dead”, and that our country has not followed the common law for a very long time, and in fact, has hardly ever done so (paraphrasing).

He made these comments very recently, so they are timely, considering the issue that’s coming before them.

From a citizen’s point of view, I think it would be tragic, and even dangerous for the high court to not do their very utmost to settle this obviously confusing question. Quite a lot is riding on it, and I’m certain that they are keenly aware of the grave implications involved here.

I hope for an outcome that best serves our national security and our posterity.


500 posted on 12/04/2008 6:16:07 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 461-480481-500501-520 ... 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