Scalia Accepts Cort Wrotnowski Case on Obama Citizenship to Conference

Supreme Court ^ | 8 Dec 08 | Unknown

[Jay777]

No. 08A469 Title: Cort Wrotnowski, Applicant v. Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State

Docketed: Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Connecticut Case Nos.: (SC 18264)

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Nov 25 2008 Application (08A469) for stay and/or injunction, submitted to Justice Ginsburg. Nov 26 2008 Application (08A469) denied by Justice Ginsburg. Nov 29 2008 Application (08A469) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia. Dec 8 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 12, 2008. Dec 8 2008 Application (08A469) referred to the Court by Justice Scalia.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~ Attorneys for Petitioner: Cort Wrotnowski 1057 North Street (202) 862-8554 Greenwich, CT 06831 Party name: Cort Wrotnowski Attorneys for Respondent: Richard Blumenthal Attorney General (860) 808-5316 Office of the Attorney General 55 Elm Street P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141-0120 Party name: Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State

[perfect stranger]

You want me to dig through the pages of this to find the flaw in my argument? Obama’s supporters have links, give me facts.

[Bellflower]

ping

[Wil H]

Jeezus! Give it up people! He aint going no where! SCOTUS will punt!

What is your problem? it is not an unreasonable request that the man produce evidence of his eligibility.

To this day no one has any knowledge of where precisely he was born.

No one has produced conclusive evidence he was even born in the USA.

All the media claims that he was born in Hawaii are based on the false assumption that having a Hawaiian birth certificate means you must have been born in Hawaii.

McCain, when challenged, produced full documentation in five minutes flat.

0bama has spent a fortune on resisting giving any information whatsoever despite the fact we know he has birth certificate that he could easily release on file in Hawaii.

[Paige]

Nov 25 2008 Application (08A469) for stay and/or injunction, submitted to Justice Ginsburg. Nov 26 2008 Application (08A469) denied by Justice Ginsburg. Nov 29 2008 Application (08A469) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia. Dec 8 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 12, 2008. Dec 8 2008 Application (08A469) referred to the Court by Justice Scalia.

Ginsberg didn't want the Court to look at this case and Scalia did. The case was refiled and Scalia referred the case to the Court. I'll have to read this case, but this is on the issue that Obama must show his Certificate of Live Birth. The Constitutional issue of Obama being a natural born citizen is the question. Scalia sees what we see now let's see if he can push this case far enough.

[real_patriotic_american]

I agree! Never give up!!

http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244

[Grampa Dave]

"This is going to lead to unforeseen, unintended and unknown ramifications." by Thumper1960 (A modern so-called "Conservative" is a shadow of a wisp of a vertebrate human being.)

Now, Felipe de Jesus CALDERON Hinojosa & Schwarzenegger can run for US el presidente in 2112! They can run the pro Gay/Green Governator with the Presidente of Mexico for co el Presidentes of the 57 states.

With the voters in Mexico, South America, Canada, Europe, Iran and "new voters" in the Former USA, the Governator can be co presidente with the Mexican Presidente for life.

They will win by 200 million votes, and that settles that. No one will challenge either one including a lot of Freepers as they will fear riots if the constitution is considered. Just move on to 2040.

[Beckwith]

Jeezus! Give it up people! He aint going no where! SCOTUS will punt!

You're the kind of quitter that would have advised the NY Giants to quit at the end of the 3rd quarter in last year's Super Bowl.

[krogers58]

You're the kind of quitter that would have advised the NY Giants to quit at the end of the 3rd quarter in last year's Super Bowl.

As a New England Patriots fan, I'd have to admit I would've encouraged the Giants to quit, as well. Great game by the Giants, who deserved to win.

[AZ .44 MAG]

Good news.

After Heller I have some hope SCOTUS may do the right thing and hear this.

[Thumper1960]

I am so glad I have the capability to forcefully and vigorously defend myself and my family. What is coming down the road is not going to be pretty. It is unforeseen. It is also not what we all hoped would be a continuation of an American dream.

[CottonBall]

Wouldn’t it be diabolical if Donofrio focused so much attention on his own case knowing that it would be thrown out by the Supreme Court and be a straw man and that actually this Wrotnowski case was explicitly placed under the radar to escape the attention of the MSM and other critics? If so this strategy was brilliant.

That's a good point. In a thread yesterday, I was wondering why after Donofrio's case was rejected, he said he had also been working on this case and that it had better standing, and would now be concentrating on helping it. Seemed odd to me that he'd even advance his own if he knew it was weaker and had less chance.

[Grampa Dave]

My sons and I have been running what if’s through our minds.

The three of us live on cul de sacs and are the only hunters or gun owners that we know of. One son lives near by and can drive here in a few minutes, walk in 12-15 minutes or ride a bike in 5 minutes or 15 minutes on a mountain bike not hitting many roads.

The other son lives within 15-30 minutes of thousands and thousands of ethnic Zero voters. We have discussed the possibility of he and his family coming here (an hour or so if they beat the riots and hours via back roads if the fecal matter hits the fan.)

[DMon]

It is standard proceedure whenever a application is resubmitted to a second justice, that application is scheduled for conference. Otherwise the applicant can submit the application individually to all nine justices.

The fact that the application was referred to conference does not imply the case does or does not have merit. It is simply a precedural thing.

[Diogenesis]

John Jay (December 12, 1745 – May 17, 1829),
American revolutionary, and the first Chief Justice of the United States
was so concerned about "natural born"
being a PREREQUISITE to being POTUS, that he wrote to
Gen. Washington and underlined this in his letter (see below).

"[T]he people are the sovereign of this country, and consequently that
fellow citizens and joint sovereigns cannot be degraded by appearing
with each other in their own courts to have their controversies determined.
The people have reason to prize and rejoice in such valuable privileges,
and they ought not to forget that nothing but the free course
of constitutional law and government can ensure the continuance
and enjoyment of them."
[John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia]

SCOTUS 2008 apparently regards both John Jay and the American public as 'de minimus'
in their own eager, drunken, continuous disregard of the Constitution
which at least six of them lied that they would protect and defend.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Just tried to work thru this....

starting with this

a natural born Citizen ....is a person born in the United States to parents who are both citizens of the United States,

*******

OK clearly Obama has one parent who is US born and one who is not....

**************

So now ...is that the Requirement?

********************

Lets go to this from American Thinker....

Who Enforces the Constitution's Natural Born Citizen Clause?

***************************EXCERPT*****************************

If you believe in individual rights and the notion that our Constitution is a document granting enumerated but limited powers to the federal government, then you have reason to be troubled by the recent dismissal in Berg v. Obama et al.

Philip Berg, Democrat and former Assistant Attorney General for Pennsylvania, brought suit alleging that under the Natural Born Citizen Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Barack Obama is ineligible to be President.  Federal Judge R. Barclay Surrick recently granted the motion to dismiss filed by Senator Obama and other defendants, including the Democratic National Committee, on grounds that Berg lacked standing to sue as a mere voter.

The judicial doctrine of standing is important.  It is a requirement that plaintiffs have a real stake in the outcome of a real controversy.  This prevents, among other problems, persons bringing lawsuits simply to harass defendants.  The judicial doctrine of standing is one of many judicial doctrines designed to limit the courts from being overloaded with cases that aren't properly resolvable by the courts, such as ripeness (case brought too soon), mootness (case brought too late), lack of jurisdiction, etc.

When constitutional rights are at stake, courts have tended to give wider latitude to the standing of plaintiffs.  The theory is that another person's loss of constitutional rights may indeed affect one's own constitutional rights.

Judge Surrick's carefully worded opinion cites to cases where standing was at issue, including a similar case in which the eligibility of John McCain to be President was challenged.  In deciding that "a candidate's ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters," Judge Surrick writes in a footnote of potentially considerable consequence:

If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution's eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff.  Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring . . .

Here's where I believe Judge Surrick's decision breaks down from a constitutional perspective.

The enumerated powers of the respective branches of government are set forth in the first three articles of the Constitution.  Article III states that the judicial power is vested in the courts, and "shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution . . ." 

A case about whether a candidate is a natural born citizen seems quite clearly to arise under the Constitution, and thus within the exclusive domain of the courts. 

**********************************

Do read the whold article....

****************************

So the Supreme Court seems to be the enforcer.....I wonder what they are going to say .... about clearing up the definition of natural born citizen...?

[nonsporting]

Jeezus! Give it up people! He aint going no where! SCOTUS will punt!

This issue is not going away. Get used to it.

This bears repeating. Obama cannot change his birth and as long as this issue is left unresolved by the Court, it will keep coming up. Better now, when consequences can more easily be addressed, that later, when a lot more water under the bridge will complicate.

The faint-hearted should not be so willing to admit defeat and let this thing take its course.

[Canedawg]

“A case about whether a candidate is a natural born citizen seems quite clearly to arise under the Constitution, and thus within the exclusive domain of the courts.”
- ———— ———— -—

No argument there, but the standing requirements still pose a barrier to WHOM may bring such a suit.

Judge Surrick followed the principle of stare decisis, and ruled on the Berg case in accordance with previous case decisions that dismissed similar cases due to a lack of standing.

He could have decided otherwise, and forced the defendants to appeal, but unless the SCOTUS makes law by changing the standing requirement, these cases will meet similar outcomes.

That is why Alan Keyes’ case is different, and why his case has a better chance of being decided on the merits.

[Grampa Dave]

Actually, I would be glad if the Supremes really looked at this situation and clarified it.

[Eye of Unk]

Things are most definitely taking a course right now especially just recently, the issues of the POTUS eligibility requirements is something too many Americans cannot comprehend and does take explaining and will continue every day for as long as it takes.

America cannot allow this to take a precedent, we cannot alter our Constitution just to appease those that were misled by a complete breakdown in election procedures..

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

More on Jay's Letter from the Wikipedia....(may be useful information but ALWAYS we must be careful with our acceptance as biased individuals have access to create the article)....

Natural-born citizen

*************************EXCERPT****************************

Constitutional provisions

The special term "Natural Born Citizen" is used in particular as a requirement for eligibility to serve as President or Vice President of the United States. Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution contains the clause:

“

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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

”

Additionally, the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that: "[N]o person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

It is generally agreed that these constitutional provisions mean anyone born on American soil to parents who are U.S. citizens is a “natural born citizen” eligible to someday become president or vice-president, whereas anyone whose citizenship is acquired after birth as a result of naturalization "process or procedure" is not a "natural born citizen" and is therefore ineligible for those two positions.^[1] In between these extremes lie gray areas and controversy.^[2]

The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides an additional source of constitutional doctrine stating that birth "in the United States" and subjection to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of birth, entitles one to citizenship:

“

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the Jurisdiction thereof, are Citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. . .

”

This clause mentions two types of citizenship: citizenship by birth and citizenship by law (naturalized citizens). However, the full text of the fourteenth amendment does not mention the phrase "natural born citizen," nor does it address Presidential qualifications. The phrase "natural born Citizen" is not defined anywhere in the Constitution, as is true with most Constitutional terms.

Section 8 of Article One of the United States Constitution confers on Congress the power "to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization..." This power has been construed to include defining the characteristics of a "natural born citizen", as well as the conditions of "naturalization". But, according to the U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual, "the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes."^[3]

It is thought the origin of the natural born citizen clause can be traced to a letter of July 25, 1787 from John Jay (who was born in New York) to George Washington (who was born in Virginia), presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention. John Jay wrote: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; 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."^[4] There was no debate, and this qualification for the office of the Presidency was introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without discussion by the Constitutional Convention.

[edit] Legislation and executive branch policy

The requirements for citizenship and its very definition have changed since the Constitution was ratified in 1788. Congress first recognized the citizenship of children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, under the first naturalization law: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."^[5][6] Many members of the 1790 Congress had been members of the Constitutional Convention. In addition, George Washington was president of the Constitutional Convention and President of the United States when this bill became law, yet it was not vetoed.

In 1795, the Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 which removed the words "natural born" from the 1790 statute, to state that such children born to citizens beyond the seas are citizens of the U.S., but are not legally to be considered "natural born citizens" of the U.S. This was done to clarify for those living at that time who was and who was not a "natural born citizen" per the framers intent at that time, since the 1790 Act had introduced confusion into that subject in regards to the use of those words in the Constitution. George Washington was also President in 1795, and thus he was aware of this change, and yet did not veto it.

All persons born in the United States, except those not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government (such as children of foreign diplomats) are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. Additionally, certain other people have been classified by federal statute as citizens at birth, according to 8 U.S.C. § 1401. The law governing the citizenship of children born outside the U.S. to one or more U.S.-citizen parents has varied considerably over time.^[7] Current U.S. statutes define certain individuals born overseas as "citizens at birth."^[8]

Currently under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA) effective from December 24, 1952 to present, the definition of the "United States" for nationality purposes, was expanded to add Guam; and, effective November 3, 1986, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (in addition to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands of the United States). Persons born in these territories on or after December 24, 1952 acquire U.S. citizenship at birth on the same terms as persons born in other parts of the United States; and "Outlying possessions of the United States" was restricted to American Samoa and Swains Island. ^[9]

Regarding people born at U.S. military bases in foreign countries, current State Department policy reads: "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."^[10] However, the State Department is of the opinion that this does not affect those who are born abroad to U.S. citizens and who otherwise meet the qualifications for statutory citizenship.^[11]

[edit] Case law