Skip to comments.Supreme Court refused to hear the Donofrio case because he was a kook!
Posted on 12/08/2008 10:48:27 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants
click here to read article
Agreed, but at least now they're covered.
How about the Wednesday Lotto numbers? We won't flame you if you're right!
Third, if the Supreme Court HAD taken the case, then MILLIONS of people born inside the US with one or both parents not being US citizens would no longer be considered US citizens.
***No, they would be naturalized citizens rather than natural born citizens. The supreme court could have ruled on the case and said that the Secretary of State didn’t do her job, and that the definition of a natural born citizen is.... and that would have settled the whole thing.
18 years, 8 months, 6 days. I agree that she probably didn't work for the government at that time. It has been reported that she was a college student, which is where she met BHO Sr.
What makes you think I want to share?
You are fighting on the right side "FRiend."
That's completely idiotic.
The Donofrio case would not have affected anyone's citizenship. All it would effect is to clarify who is eligible to be president.
Sorry, I meant you are fighting on the wrong side.
Some thirty or forty years ago, they ruled that a tax break for a qualifying widow (who had dependent children) that allowed her to file at joint tax rates for two years also applied to similarly qualifying widowers. The fact that Obama's mother was a US citizen was plenty for them to dismiss this case.
Now, can we all take off the tinfoil hats and figure out how to fight this assclown's policies and initiatives?
Good grief, are you on that kick again? You are still wrong. There is no 'born a citizen but not a natural born citizen' class of US citizen and no amount of wishing and hoping will make it so. There is no basis in US Law or the COTUS to support that idea. Donofrio's suit is garbage. Arguments based on Blackstone, St. George Tucker, Vettel, Natural Law, British Common Law and the like might have validity if there weren't an existing body of US Law and SCOTUS rulings that supersede any contrived 'original intent' argument you might try to make. Get over it.
That is the 1986 statute. The 1952 statute that would have applied to Obama read "ten years, at least five".
Sadly, this stillborn horse continues to get beaten by the constitutional scholars here that have so much more insight into constitutional matters than even SCOTUS justices.
To dismiss the case, yes, since it was based on a fallacious premise. But insufficient to establish Obama as a citizen at birth. His mother failed some residency requirements (not gender based) if he was born overseas due to her age.
I do think that these cases expose the fact that we've been essentially depending on the good honor of the major party nominees to be qualified to run. Even if the SCOTUS took one case, they could establish a precident on an issue that has never come before that Court.
Otherwise, say hello to President Schwartzenegger in 2012, 2016, or 2020.
As Donofrio has shown, absolutely no SCOTUS rulings have changed the constitutional meaning of “natural born Citizen.”
Your arguments are a liberal’s “living and breathing Constitution” arguments (or they are factually wrong).
I am not the one trying to create new meanings here. I notice that you tend to call people that disagree with you names, like "liberal," instead of actually attempting to persuade them with reasoned arguments. Perhaps you should go back over your own posts and count up all the times you have resorted to name calling when you lost an argument and meditate on it.
Yes, IF. Why doesn't he show us? The longer it goes on, the less absurd the question is.
"I don't think someone planned way back in 1961 to plant newspaper announcements on the chance that he'd run for president."
I don't think that either, but what I do think is that such an announcement might have been made regardless of where the birth occurred. It is not uncommon for notices to appear in the 'hometown' paper for a birth that has occurred elsewhere, solely for the benefit of family or even friends still in the area. Happened with my own kids. So I don't consider that announcement conclusive, any more than I consider Obama's grandmother's assertion that she attended his birth in Kenya conclusive. There is just too much contradictory evidence to leave this unanswered when the answer is so easy for Obama provide.
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.