As is required with almost all media reports, one has to read between the lines. In this article, there is actually some very significant information. In effect, the constitutional expert, who just happened to clerk for a very liberal judge on the 9th CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (most liberal district) and then at the USSC for RUTH BADER GINSBERG (most liberal Justice) before becoming a professor at COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY (most liberal law school, which is really saying something) saying that:
1. Thomas' actions were "once in a decade";
2. Inconsistent with Court custom since they usually don't question another Justice's denial out of their own circuit; and
3. Only cases that were of an "extraordinary nature got this type of treatment.
He then asserts this weird analysis about Thomas accepting the case so it could be killed before the entire conference?!? Huh? Why not just deny it and be done with it. There is no reason to kill it in conference... this guy is really grasping at straws to explain the Court's behavior. But, on the other hand, if one DID see this as "a case of extraordinary nature", then these actions would be understandable. But that would mean that AFRO magazine would have to acknowledge that this isn't as screwball as the media wants us to believe.
This is a good sign, IMO.
Okay, now it’s gettin’ interesting again. :’) Thanks LucyT.
**PING**
I fully expect this to be sent back to district with stipulation that the NJ authorities verify Hawaiian birth for Barack Obama. That of course will not settle the issues but it will punt the ball out of the SCOTUS sty covered in crap, to be slapped around some more. I dare say the conference session will be one of the most volatile in recent years and that Justice Thomas will make a very compelling case that this man has not shown his Constitutional eligibility and in fact has spent a million dollars try to hide the facts on that issue and hidden ALL documents which might help resolve the issue. But then I am absolutely convinced that Justice Clarence Thomas is one of the most intelligent, judicious, and patriotic judges to ever sit that bench. If we had eight more like him on the SCOTUS America would be standing much taller and with much more moral strength.
PING
PING
U.S. Citizenship Law and Overseas Americans
http://www.aca.ch/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=51&Itemid=80
so then no president born in the USA of immigrant parents could ever have been a citizen.
If the supremes won’t uphold the const. then a lot of military guys will be sure to ask out of their oaths, why should they uphold any more than the supremes do.
**DONOFRIO IS SAYING OBAMA CANNOT BE A “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN,” BECAUSE HIS FATHER WAS A BRITISH CITIZEN AT THE TIME OF OBAMA’S BIRTH.**
Finally we are getting down to brass tacks.
God bless Justice Thomas!
“DONOFRIO IS SAYING OBAMA CANNOT BE A “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN,” BECAUSE HIS FATHER WAS A BRITISH CITIZEN AT THE TIME OF OBAMA’S BIRTH.”
That is patently ridiculous. Where the parents were born matter not. If a person is born in the United States, he is a natural born American citizen.
The question is exactly where Obama was born. If he was born in Kenya or Indonesia, he is not a natural born citizen of the US, and ineligible to be POTUS.
If he was born in Hawaii, he is.
What about a child born abroad to two American parents who register his birth immediately at the American Embassy in that country. How would this affect children born to American citizens working or studying abroad?
Good on Justice Thomas. I know some people don’t like him because he doesn’t look like all the other Justices...
If this was from API I could believe this would go somewhere.
Pure nonsense.
Journalists? - Where?
Any news on Leo’s case yesterday? I heard there was no decision?
Someone said when SCOTUS agrees to hear a case they announce it the same day (yesterday) and when they turn it away it is posted the following week??? Is this true?
LAUNCHING NEW POST IN A FEW MINUTES:
Full Symposium documented in Sept 08 Mich Law Review on McCain Natural Born / Eligibility!!
http://www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol107/mccain.htm
What goes on here? Why haven’t I heard this mentioned on the Plainsradio shows, of which I’ve heard at least 75% of? Why hasn’t Donofrio or anyone mentioned this organ? I’m sure he hadn’t as it would have been most memorable. You can see readily the first (and longest-some 27 pages pasted into MS Word- the others are less than ten- and these are REAL academic pieces with full footnoting) has it McCain ineligible, the final two that he is. I’ve only browsed them as I pasted into MS Word. I see many references to things being discussed here on FR and I believe some I have not seen (other cases). Perhaps the large, late Benjamin piece on TD blog has more refs to those here (in comments JB gives a list of about 5 cases to a detractor). I haven’t sussed two articles set between.
Just looking here it’s a wonder the 9 in SCOTUS wouldn’t be taking on the Donofrio case. One would have to think they have disgorged these five articles. One would have to think the four conservatives and at least one other would issue or want to issue decision.
In haste I post. It’d take me a lot of time to study as I should. Just passing it on without comment, except my real PC has just had its famous pre-repair crash now back from the shop a week. I’ve also lost my long ping list so do as you would, please. Someone should get this to Donofrio, really. I just don’t, in what I’ve scrolled through here, think he’s onto some of this anyways. My files are trapped in a CPU that won’t turn on as of less than an hour ago. Of course there are many references to his cited materials but there are things…well, maybe I’m dreaming.
Here is the one FR post from this I found in quick search of “Natural Born Citizen”.
Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen Clause
10/22/2008 6:31:48 PM PDT • by Dajjal • 7 replies • 707+ views
There are four more entries that go back to Sept 13 – didn’t FR lose files with a server change back around here? I believe I caught it on Atlas Shruggs, where I was lurking / mining back then, along with Godlikeproductions (yes, of all places) and TexasDarlin. I didn’t join FR until later.
Here goes:
Volume 107, No. 1 (September 2008)
An Online Symposium on
Senator John McCain and Natural Born Citizenship
Senator John McCain, the current Republican Party nominee for President, was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936. The circumstances of his birth raise the question of whether he is a “natural born citizen” as required by Article II, section 1 of the Constitution. The symposium contributors explore both the substance of this issue and the methods used to resolve it.
Why Senator John McCain Cannot be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship [HTML] [PDF]
Gabriel J. Chin, University of Arizona Law School
Article II, section 1 of the Constitution provides that “No Person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .” A person must be a citizen at birth to be a natural born citizen. Senator McCain was born in the Canal Zone in 1936. Although he is now a U.S. citizen, the law in effect in 1936 did not grant him citizenship at birth. Because he was not born a citizen, he is not eligible to the office of president.
Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen Clause [HTML] [PDF]
Lawrence B. Solum, University of Illinois Law School
The enigmatic phrase “natural born citizen” poses a series of problems for contemporary originalism. New Originalists, like Justice Scalia, focus on the original public meaning of the constitutional text. The notion of a “natural born citizen” was likely a term of art derived from the idea of a “natural born subject” in English law—a category that most likely did not extend to persons, like Senator McCain, who were born outside sovereign territory. But the Constitution speaks of “citizens” and not “subjects,” introducing uncertainties and ambiguities that might (or might not) make McCain eligible for the presidency.
The Justiciability of Eligibility: May Courts Decide Who Can Be President? [HTML] [PDF]
Daniel P. Tokaji, The Ohio State University, Moritz College of Law
The 2008 election cycle has been a busy one for legal disputes over the qualifications of presidential candidates, with federal cases having been filed to challenge both major candidates’ eligibility under the “natural born Citizen” clause. These cases unquestionably present vital questions of constitutional law, touching on matters of self-evident national importance. It is doubtful, however, that they are justiciable in lower federal courts. Standing requirements and the political question doctrine make it unlikely that a federal court will reach the merits in cases of the type filed to date.
McCain’s Citizenship and Constitutional Method [HTML] [PDF]
Peter J. Spiro, Temple University Beasley School of Law
Many things may obstruct John McCain’s path to the White House, but his citizenship status is not among them. The question of his eligibility, given the circumstances of his birth, has already been resolved. That outcome has been produced by actors outside the courts. . . . If non-judicial actors—including Congress, editorialists, leading members of the bar, and the People themselves—manage to generate a constitutional consensus, there isn’t much that the courts can do about it. In cases such as this one, at least, that seems to be an acceptable method of constitutional determination.
Why John McCain Was a Citizen at Birth [HTML] [PDF]
Stephen E. Sachs
Senator John McCain was born a citizen in 1936. Professor Gabriel J. Chin challenges this view in this Symposium, arguing that McCain’s birth in the Panama Canal Zone (while his father was stationed there by the Navy) fell into a loophole in the governing statute. The best historical evidence, however, suggests that this loophole is an illusion and that McCain is a “natural born Citizen” eligible to be president.