Replies

This case had no chance..... basically Donofrio is claiming that the laws of a foreign nation (Britain considered him a citizen at birth) precludes an American citizen from becoming president. U.S. law puts no weight whatsoever on foreign country's laws. If that were the case, Iran could pass a law tomorrow that all U.S. citizens of Iran, disqualifying anyone..so unless you are of the opinion that foreign laws apply to U.S. citizens this case is folly.....maybe the Iranians will also require each of us to pay income taxes

There is no definitive evidence to support your view, and that is why the Supreme Court needs to rule on what "natural born citizen" means. Obama Sr. was not a U.S. citizen, and it is not reasonable to assume that the United States would not honor his wish, had he demonstrated it, to take his child to his place of residence in Kenya. Obama Sr. had rights afforded him as the father of that child under the law in effect regarding nationality in the UK (1948). That law provided that his progeny were also British subjects. I doubt that the United States would have denied Obama Sr. his legal rights as parent, so in that sense, indeed, Obama Jr. inherited his nationality from his father at birth.

The question is what the U.S. law at the time said about Obama Jr's citizenship. Was he natural born? That is what we wanted the Supreme Court to decide. The question is an open one that has never been decided.

This case had no chance..... basically Donofrio is claiming that the laws of a foreign nation (Britain considered him a citizen at birth) precludes an American citizen from becoming president. U.S. law puts no weight whatsoever on foreign country's laws.
- - -
Actually, the problem with Donofrio's case, imho, is that (a) the lower courts' ruling were based on independent and adequate state law grounds; and (b) he was asking SCOTUS to make factual determinations not addressed in the lower courts. Both of these made it "sure" that SCOTUS would not grant the application.

(a)Count 1 in his SCOTUS brief addressed whether the NJ SOS properly complied with NJ law (not federal law). He did not, I don't think, challenge the constitutionality of the NJ law; he alleged that SOS didn't properly follow NJ law. That is not a federal issue and SCOTUS will not hear it.

(b) Count 2 in his SCOTUS brief addressed the "NBC" argument, based on alleged FACTS not addressed or ruled on in the lower courts. So - SCOTUS would not hear that Count.

This is why (imho), his application was denied.

Wrotnowski faces a similar challenge - and then some. His case was dismissed by the Connecticut Supreme Court on grounds of lack of standing - under CT law (not federal law). See Opinion. In Wrotnowski's SCOTUS brief, he takes issue with the CT Court's use of the CT statute to deny him standing. However, again, that is a matter of STATE law, not federal law, so SCOTUS won't hear it. (If Wrotnowski were arguing that the CT standing law - or the law as interpreted by the CT Supreme Court - was unconstitutional, THAT would potentially raise a federal law issue. However, so far he hasn't.)

In other words, in both of these cases, the lower courts based their ruling on "independent and adequate" state law grounds. SCOTUS will not accept cases like this. Wrotnowski's case has the further "state law standing" issue to get over.

I still think that of the cases, Berg's has the best chance of being heard, although that will only happen if SCOTUS is intereted in overturning a bunch of precedent as to voter standing. Not likely, imho, but possible - more possible than the likelihood that SCOTUS will accept Wrotnowski's application.

Then again, as they say, only time will tell.