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.
Thanks so much for the ping to the images especially!
Citizen in this use is like arguing that sperm are life so life begins before comception ... the fallacy hangs on missusing Organ or subunit and Oragism. Naturalized citizens are citizens. If law is cited to make one a citizen then they are not natural born, as in what the founders sought to establish for the safety of the Republic, child born to two United States Citizens on United Sattes soil or U.S. protectorate soil.
Additionally, going back to the established means in effect in the Founders’ day, a person received their name and rights through their father. But you want to ignore that, apparently. It does however aid in understanding why a natural born must have a United States citizen father, to avoid exactly what Obama has admitted to, citizenship under the Crown at birth thus subject to/of the crown.
The writings of Emer de Vattel are not U.S. law. Several SCOTUS decisions, including Wong Ark and Elg, have upheld the doctrine of “the right of the soil” over “the right of the father” argued by Vattel.
I cannot with confidence of clarity read the Jay letter in this format. I’m pretty sure he says something about the assumption of foreigners to the administration of our national government, then he says, “...and to declare expressly that the commander in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen.” Nothing in this letter expands on what we already know from the Constitution itself, near as I can tell.
Please, tell me why you think his use of the word “born” is significant.
And if you want to play silly games like focusing on the term Crown, to ridicule that we aren’t fighting the Revolutionary War anymore, note first that the issue is divided loyalties, and the Founders sought to prevent such in ANY U.S. President.
The "Law of Nations" reference is of particular interest, because that exact treatise is mentioned in our own Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 10:
"To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;"
Another Freeper brought this clause and The Law of Nations to my attention recently, and your post jogged my memory of it. I believe that she also had mentioned it in reference to the NBC issue.
If I'm reading the Constitution correctly, it says that Congress has the power to punish offenses committed against The Law of Nations, of which the statement regarding the Natural Born Citizen is a part.
I don't know that the Supreme Court will interpret it that way, but I would suspect that they would at least consult The Law of Nations as a reference in clarifying this.
“If law is cited to make one a citizen then they are not natural born”
Is that a legal argument, or philosophical mumbo-jumbo? What else would make you a citizen but law? I mean, what else does “citizenship” refer to but your legal status? Is citizenship a state of mind, or a state of being granted only by God?
“as in what the founders sought to establish for the safety of the Republic, child born to two United States Citizens on United Sattes soil or U.S. protectorate soil.”
If that is what they sought to establish, why didn’t they put it into that Constitution they wrote? Besides, the 14th amendment supercedes the opinion of the Founders on the issue of who is born a citizen. That’s how amendments work.
“Additionally, going back to the established means in effect in the Founders day, a person received their name and rights through their father”
Be that as it may, it’s not in the Constitution.
“It does however aid in understanding why a natural born must have a United States citizen father, to avoid exactly what Obama has admitted to, citizenship under the Crown at birth thus subject to/of the crown.”
SCOTUS disagrees with you. They have consistently held (see: Elg, Wong Ark) that the children of citizens of foreign countries are not exclusively subjects of those countries. You see, the U.S. government doesn’t care if you have the opportunity to claim citizenship somewhere else; they’ll still consider you a citizen if you’re born here.
Who-knew-there-would-be-anything-to-Ping-over-the-weekend-Ping.
Thanks to SunkenCiv for the HTML.
Click on it:
john jay to washington...is this in the federalist papers
also........
“The ‘Law of Nations’ reference is of particular interest, because that exact treatise is mentioned in our own Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 10:
‘To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;’”
Are you serious? The phrase “the law of nations” is not unique to the title of Vatell’s book. It has long been in general usage, which is probably why Vatell picked it in the first place (they didn’t have very clever titles back then). Roughly, the phrase refers to a code recognized by the common consent of nations, like an unofficial international law. What exactly constitutes offenses against “the law of nations” I cannot say with much accuracy, but I guess that’s why the Constitution leaves it up to Congress to define and punish them.
Anyway, there is no chance the Framers intentionally singled out Vatell’s book. Why on earth would they have burried the definition of a natural born citizen inside an old book within a clause about pirates, of all things? To do so would be lunacy. There could be hundreds, even thousand of principles postulated in Vatell’s book. Are you seriously arguing that all of them are Constitutional law because the words “the law of nations” appear somewhere in the Constitution’s text?
“If I’m reading the Constitution correctly, it says that Congress has the power to punish offenses committed against The Law of Nations, of which the statement regarding the Natural Born Citizen is a part”
What would it mean for Congress to punish an offense committed against Vatell’s definition of a natural born citizen? That doesn’t make any sense.
“Tublecane, are you playing a semantics game with me?”
Well, legal arguments must eventually boil down to semantics, since laws are written with words. But I’m not playing games. I just want to know what the significance of Jay’s letter is, and how it pertains to the difference between citizens by virtue of birth according to the 14th amendment and natural born citizens.
Further, you’re the one who asked me to notice the word “born.” I’d like to know why you asked me to notice it.
thanks!
Results 1 - 10 of about 6,980,000 for obama born in kenya. (0.13 seconds)
Tublecane, I was trying to responded to your question, while responding to calenel's question: " ... definition of natural born from that found in the dictionary: having an attribute or quality from birth. Do you have one?
"When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the kings dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majestys English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once.
......................................................
The trend I see in MY analysis of these influential works is that loyalty, dominion, being under the "King's protection," and being a citizen/subject are connected, passed on by heirship, nearly always paternally, and AT BIRTH.
That's why the DUAL CITIZENSHIP issue is a critical component of the Obama case. You either have "Natural Born Citizenship" at birth, OR YOU DO NOT. If you DON'T, you're a CITIZEN. There's some more research I need to do looking at the Hague Convention, British and later the Kenyan Constitution, and parse some of the lesser known U.S. Naturalization cases.
And can you point out where the difference between natural born citizen and citizen at birth is to be found? What part of the Constitution or what federal law defines that?
There's some more research I need to do looking at the Hague Convention, British and later the Kenyan Constitution, and parse some of the lesser known U.S. Naturalization cases.
Yes, let's look at U.S. law and U.S. court decisions for a change. Eighteenth century Dutch authors are not going to make your case.
Excellent reply.
Thanks for the ping.
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.