Skip to comments.Explaining Donofrio to a Ridiculing, Conservative Radio Talk Host
Posted on 11/26/2008 4:54:53 PM PST by unspun
Why are so many in conservative media so wilfully ignorant regarding the most significant challenge(s) to Barack Obama's status as a presidential candidate? The question keeps getting asked and perhaps there are numerous answers. Here are the answers right out of the horse's mouth, from one conservative pundit.
I'll post below a running email conversation I've had with a conservative talk radio host, since I let him know about the "Ron Polarik, PhD." allegations about the Obama BC and about Leo Donofrio. He is a local broadcaster, somewhere in the United States. I'll call him "Chip Program."
It is astounding enough to see how brainwashed, hypnotized, cultish (you choose the word you like) are Obama supporters. How much more stunning is it to see Obama's (and the establishment's) sway over the minds of outspoken conservatives. What makes them so vulnerable? Is theirs the weak conservatism of the staus quo? Enquring minds wish to know.
My comments will be in black. Chip's will be in dark red and blockquoted. Here we go....
Arlen on my blog I linked two newspapers that announced Barack Obama's birth in August of 1961. Two Honolulu newspapers. Copies of these have been found by numerous news organizations. This isn't real Arlen. Get over it.
Arlen, just a bit more FYI. Yes, Taranto is a conservative.
Thanks Chip. It seems that many conservatives are worried about being labeled "on the fringe." If Taranto wants to continue down that self-conscious, inoffensive-to-the-opposition path, maybe he will become a U.S. Senator.some day ;-) He uses the Berg case as a red herring for the Donofrio case, however Donofrio is a thoroughly different case.
The whole notion of this allegiance to another nation only came up after the notion that he wasnt born in the U.S. didnt fly. It was a plan B. This is fringe stuff Arlen; how much did Limbaugh, Hannity, OReilly, etc. talk about this? The easiest way for conservatives to get on a long losing streak the way liberals did is to wallow in this stuff. Thats why I rail against it.
Impassioned means nothing Arlen. The people who think Bush/Cheney perpetrated 9/11 (Phillip Berg among them) are impassioned too. Im railing against fantasy Arlen, nothing less, and sadly, nothing more.
I have reviewed it Arlen, delusional people often believe rational people are intelligent enough to construe their delusions. Its a common symptom.
No Arlen, I merely assert your belief system on this issue is delusional. Have a great Thanksgiving.
It appears that you probably need to start by gaining an elementary understanding of natural law. After you do, let me know what the founders mean by natural and what St. George is saying as it regards a person born in the United States by a father who is a citizen of a different nation. Take your time (but in your interest, I advise you not to speak on the air of these matters until you learn).
Again Arlen, Happy Thanksgiving, make sure to check the turkey for explosives C
I wasnt going to leave it at that. The bold print is for this thread
Natural law specifies identity, rights, and legal holdings imparted by one's father. I tell you what Arlen, If the Supreme Court takes the seriously, Ill be the first to apologize to you. My point is they, wont, so you shouldnt. Get on with your life Arlen. He won. There will be no do overs. You are correct about his President elect status. What I said was SCOTUS will ignore any question of his validity Arlen. If they don't, I'll apologize. They will, so should you. Yes, he won, get over it Arlen.
Now, tell me what a "natural born citizen" is as opposed to merely a "born citizen."
What part of this is difficult for you to understand?
That has no bearing upon whether he is a valid candidate, even if it does mean that he has tentatively "won" (which he has not). Even if the SCOTUS decides he is not eligible after he has taken the oath of office, he would immediately be unrecognized as president.
BTW, is not "President-Elect Obama" as the media improperly state, though he could be called presumptive president-elect.
When people act outside of law, it is incumbent upon the Judical Branch to correct them, not to bend to them.
Last I checked, Clarence Thomas was a Supreme Court justice and his view of the Constitution was very similar to three other justices -- and not completely dissimilar form a fifth of the nine. I hope you can stand the singing of your personal fat lady between now and about December 8. In the mean time, yes, have a good Thanksgiving (and please stop picking on fellow conservatives who seek Constitutional elections of presidents).
And that is where it presently stands with Chip Program, as the clock ticks and Supreme Court Justices and their staffs are doing the research necessary to prepare for the December 5 conference .
Conservative or conventionalist?
Ive reported. You decide.
I tell you what Arlen,
If the Supreme Court takes the seriously, Ill be the first to apologize to you. My point is they, wont, so you shouldnt. Get on with your life Arlen. He won. There will be no do overs.
You are correct about his President elect status. What I said was SCOTUS will ignore any question of his validity Arlen. If they don't, I'll apologize. They will, so should you. Yes, he won, get over it Arlen.
Not buying this crackpot conspiracy theory does not make one willfully ignorant. There are good reasons why no conservative radio host (or anyone with a professional reputation to uphold) is buying this. Because it is so convoluted as to not make any sense.
This "Chip" guy is the voice of reason. He makes sense. You BC folks don't. That's why no one is buying this garbage and after December 5th, hopefully everyone trying to sell it will be relegated to the tin foil hat brigade where they belong.
No matter how true the facts in the allegation, if the SCOTUS doesn't take the bait, every conservative who rallied the troops on this matter will be excoriated as an absolute LOON.
The left wing crazies would howl in delight and pee themselves with rapture in castigating the poor, well intentioned Conservative and hound him/her into obscurity.
That is the fear.
Alan Keyes Tells Us Why He Questions Obama’s Presidency
The Constitution requires that, to be president, one must be a natural born citizen of the United States. Conservative Alan Keyes-who ran against President-elect Barack Obama in the 2004 race for the Illinois Senate, and in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign (Keyes ran on the American Independent Party ticket)-is challenging whether that is the case for our new president. In November, Keyes filed a lawsuit against Obama, the California secretary of state, and others, to stop California from giving its electoral votes to Obama until a birth certificate is produced proving that he is indeed a natural born citizen. ESSENCE.com talked to Keyes about where he thinks Obama was born, why he questions the birth records already provided, and if this whole lawsuit is just an overblown case of sour grapes.
ESSENCE.COM: What exactly do you want to accomplish with this lawsuit?
ALAN KEYES: I had read a little bit about the issues that were being raised about Obama back during the primary season. At first I thought, like a lot of people, “There’s nothing to this. It’s just a matter of fact. You can establish what the facts are.” The Constitution specifies that a citizen who is naturalized, rather than born into the status of being an American citizen, cannot be president. That was done in the beginning because people feared a foreign takeover of the United States government by the process of immigration. Staid as it is, we again are in a situation where a lot of foreign entities have influence or control over U.S. policy.
The reason an issue has been raised about Obama is because of the simple question, which can be answered with a birth certificate that shows he was born in the United States, or born to parents who had the capacity to transmit U.S. citizenship. When the question was asked, he danced around it. If the most important office of the federal government can be occupied by someone who is not qualified under the United States Constitution, that destroys the authority of the Constitution. I think it’s something that needs to be dealt with in a clear, straightforward way. Eventually the case will get to the Supreme Court, establish the facts, and clear the air. It’s really all very simple.
ESSENCE.COM: The Obama campaign responded to these questions months ago by posting a birth certificate on his campaign Web site, showing that he was born in Hawaii.
KEYES: A lot of questions have been raised about what they posted. It has to be established by a matter of fact, not by some Web site. The state of Hawaii needs to share the birth certificate with the Supreme Court, so they can take a look at it. When I went into the government as part of the United States foreign service, you had to submit an original copy of your birth certificate. People have been dancing around Obama’s certification instead of going straight to the answer.
ESSENCE.COM: What’s wrong with the birth certificate on his Web site?
KEYES: Part of the problem is, at the time he was born, the state of Hawaii was issuing certificates of live birth. That’s what he has on the Web site. They would issue that certificate verifying you were born, but not necessarily in the United States. And there is question that, at the time that he was born, his mother was not yet of age to transmit citizenship. You had to be 19, I think. If he was born in Hawaii, then he is a natural born citizen. If he was born somewhere else-and a question has been raised if his birth was in Kenya-then his mother would not have transmitted citizenship. One needs to verify that the certificate verifies the birthplace.
ESSENCE.COM: State officials from the health department of Hawaii have verified that they have Obama’s birth records, and that he was indeed born in Hawaii. Do you think they’re lying?
KEYES: I don’t think anything. Just let it be verified. This is not something that should be taken on hearsay. This is the most important office. Everything should be done without controversy, in such a way that the Constitutional requirements are met. If something is contrary to the Constitutional requirement, then you have to do away with that. It’s not on Obama to do this. The folks with whom this burden presently rests are the officials who are now responsible for the process, who sit on the Supreme Court and other areas. They have to abide by their oaths to preserve and defend the Constitution, and not have him entering into office with a question they refuse to resolve.
ESSENCE.COM: Why didn’t you bring this up earlier, during the campaign? Why wait until two months before the inauguration?
KEYES: The election is the time when the people make the judgment, not government officials. The problem in this case is, Obama was not properly vetted-by the media, or other individuals-during the campaign. They refused to look at it. People went to the polls with the issue unresolved. Once the electoral process is done, then the responsibility for certifying the results and making sure it’s all according to the Constitution rests on the officials. So we’re at a different stage of the process. I don’t believe it would be a good idea to turn to the government to establish the qualifications of people who are running for office. That could be abused to limit the options of the people. If people are behaving with integrity, these facts would come out and then people would be able to make their judgment. This didn’t happen.
ESSENCE.COM: To a lot of people, your lawsuit looks like a case of sour grapes because you lost. Your response?
KEYES: I think politics is irrelevant to this, actually. I don’t see how it is showing fondness for Barack Obama to let him enter into office with a question that could be raised. He should not have to operate under that burden. I think the officials need to clear the air for his sake. From my point of view, it is a bad idea to have a president of the United States enter office with a cloud hanging over his head, where every time he tries to do something, he would end up frittering away time because of that objection. So let’s get it over with. Let’s resolve it and move forward with a clear an undisturbed mandate for the new president.
ESSENCE.COM: For argument’s sake, let’s say Obama is only a naturalized citizen, and was raised by Americans and grew up in the United States. What difference does that make to you?
KEYES: It makes a difference to the Constitution. The Constitution has to be obeyed. If we get into a position where it is somehow regarded as dispensable then this country will fall apart. Black people should be the first folks to remember that. Without adherence to the Constitution our battles would have never been won. I don’t want to live in a country where we are suddenly back in a world where the force of majority rules. I don’t think any of us do.
ESSENCE.COM: Would you be in support of amending that section of the Constitution?
KEYES: No, I would most certainly not. Today we are in more danger as a people of being subverted by foreign powers than we were when it was founded. It is possible, under our present rules in America, for folks from another country to come visit America, to have a child here, to take that child back to wherever, raise that child there, and that child would be an American citizen. Do we really think it would be right to have a person who has not lived in America, does not identify with our people, to run here as president of the United States?
ESSENCE.COM: That’s a different situation from what’s being questioned about Barack Obama.
KEYES: Rules have to be written in general. You can’t write a rule in every particular case. The rules established in the Constitution are general rules that have been abided by people throughout the history of this country. People have been excluded from running for president, people like Arnold Schwarzenegger. One has to think of the common good. This isn’t a question of individuals anymore. The key thing about the presidency, in my opinion, is that the person above all takes responsibility for the common good of the country. Our public officials do not swear allegiance to a country; they swear an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. That’s something to be taken very seriously. Those are the rules.
This isn't convoluted - it is a rather simple matter of law. The fact that no one wants to pay attention to the clear meaning of the Constitution - because they are too stupid to understand the concepts involved - or just don't care - is irrelevant. Why, specifically is this "garbage"?
The unique aspect of Donofrio’s suit is that one of the three presidential candidates at question, certified for election by the Secretary of State in New Jersey, is clearly and demonstrably ineligible. Roger Calero is known to have been born in Nicaragua, and has in fact been removed from the ballot in seven other states. This alone creates a compelling case. Obama and McCain both have had questions raised about their own eligibility for the office, and there has been no definitive answer under the law. Any conservative worth his or her salt should want to protect the presidential election process as defined under the Constitution, and that is what this case attempts to do. It is not a partisan effort. Donofrio is a Democrat. Questions about McCain’s eligibility were originally raised by the left, as were questions about Obama’s eligibility. So, it’s difficult, to tinfoil the whole thing as some sort of rightwing, fringer hatefest, for anyone who is being logical and rational, who has bothered to look into the matter.
Because Obama was born in Hawaii to an American mother. Like it or not, he is eligible.
But I guess Obama has pulled the wool over everyone's eyes. Everyone from Bush to Cheney, to Rice and the entire State Department (who are currently briefing Obama on matters of national security), to McCain, Palin, Hillary, Rush, Hannity, Fox News, virtually every conservative media personality and everyone else on the planet. Everyone is just too stupid to understand the clear meaning of the Constitution --everyone except a handful of internet gumshoes who know the real truth.
Yeah. It's just one big conspiracy. And you wonder why nobody takes you seriously? IMHO, you people are turning this forum into a joke and that's a damn shame.
I listened to Hannity today trying to make an issue out of these announced appointments with former Clintonistas, but his guests just mocked and laughed at him all the way through the interview, making him sound like such a fool. And at the end he grovelled at their feet. It was embarrassing.
Despite their pontifications to the contrary, these microphone jockeys are afraid that the Fairness Doctrine will destroy their little financial empires, and are trying to earn points from their future masters by deliberately failing to address this most important Constitutional issue of the hour.
Shame will be a cloak they will all wear for a long time. For every thing there is a time and purpose under heaven -- and a time to speak up and a time for silence, a time to sit and a time to stand. Now is the time to stand and speak up --
For these talk show hosts I say either deal with the issue or turn off the microphone and shut up --
Man, I’m starting to think maybe I am delusional. To actually expect someone to show a legal document to a court and all. I mean it’s only the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. But big whoopidity doo I guess.
It only doesn’t make sense if you make a cursory glance at it.
And what court has asked to see Obama's legal birth certificate?
For those of us who can read and speak English and value the words of that Constitution of ours, it makes perfect sense.
This "Chip" guy is the voice of reason. He makes sense.
Actually, since that is a felony, maybe it would... well, I can sometimes get optimisitic.
If Barack Obama is a male citizen of the United States, he will eventually have to deal with that Selective Service problem. Some claim he wasn’t required to register. But, then we have yet another questionable form posted to a partisan website during the election, apparently an attempt to obfuscate and kick the can down the road, past the primary, past the election. Well, here we are. Time for show and tell.
Is he even eligible for any Federal position, if he failed to register for Selective Service, and was required to do so? If he wasn’t, the form is fake, but the rationale behind putting the thing out there goes away as well.
Drew, ad hominem attack is very often a poor substitue for an argument, made by someone who does not have one.
To be kind, I will count your post as a cry for a education. Read the article featued in this FR post and if it is confusing to you, read it again; repeat it as necessary, until you at least begin to see what the founders/framers meant by "natural" in "natural born citizen."
Feel free to check what I've put in larger, bold letters at the top post.
And to answer fightinJAG's question, according to the "natural" in the Constitution's "natural born citizen," it matters not a whit, eh?
Sheeple stay ignorant because collectively people are stupid. The intelligence of an individual is only recognized on a one-to-one basis. Obama supporters are just that: sheeple
Also known as "Plan B" as Chip, your ridiculing conservative radio talk show host pointed out.
I don’t care if you call it “Plan 9 from Outer Space. Machs nix.
Methinks you protest too much, but I see from your profile page that you apparently have a personal interest in this subject matter, since your wife is a foreign citizen. Please don't take offense. Just take the truth; it's not about you, except that you're a sovereign citizen of the USA just like the rest of us and we must have a government that heeds its Constitution.
So, I will educate you further and use your post to further spell it out for the reader. I have already given you the research of a constitutional historian. He has cited references.
That article describes how the 14th Amendment is the very first national rule about what being a natural born citizen means. The writer states:
Who may be born citizens of the States is conditional upon being born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. The legislative definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as “Not owing allegiance to anybody else.”
The primary author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard, said the “word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”
Now, go to "Document 18, St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries," 1803 1:App. 316--25, 328--29, about Article 2's requirement:
That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, where-ever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. It was by means of foreign connections that the stadtholder of Holland, whose powers at first were probably not equal to those of a president of the United States, became a sovereign hereditary prince before the late revolution in that country. Nor is it with levity that I remark, that the very title of our first magistrate, in some measure exempts us from the danger of those calamities by which European nations are almost perpetually visited. The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora's Box.
So, there you have it, preventing any "hereditary right" to any competing allegiance due to having a foreign father was a principle of being a "natural born citizen" in Article 2's requirements for a United States President.
He was born in Hawaii? Were you there? Get a clue. All we have gotten is two forged documents that were very cheezy forgeries. A COLB and a Sel Svc doc. The rest of his records are sealed. Remember he is the candidate who got his opponents smeared, disqualified or robbed like Hillary got mugged and robbed.
I agree. Conservative talk radio is being exposed. Except for Savage and some smaller guys, they’ve all punted. All it takes is an examination of the facts at hand.
I have lost a lot of respect for these so called ‘leaders’.
Thanks for this unspun.
If he propped himself on the ADMITTED dual citizenship of Kenya until age 21, would that have been his justification for not registering at 18?
If he was a citizen of the United States at the time, he was still required to register, as far as I am able to tell.
I have to admit I feel a little guilty, reading along as you take Drew68 to the woodshed. It’s really not a fair fight, given the nature of the dispute. The point is, either we are a republic of laws or we aren’t.
What makes the situation so remarkable is that someone was able to get so far without being vetted. This is the badge of shame our media and Democratic party should wear, by rights. Unfortunately, it’s my personal belief that they’ll never have to face any sort of reckoning (i’ll leave it at that).
Obama was born in Hawaii.....
Do you have proof? Did you actually see the vault copy??
Or are you a fool who goes along with what the media tells you?
IF you were to actually read the Donofrio case you might begin to understand that even IF Obama were ‘declared’ natural born, any prior birth status would be relinquished when his Indonesian father adopted him for his schooling there.
Drew68, you should really understand the nature of Donofrio’s case before commenting on it. Not only is he questioning Obama’s status as a candidate, he’s also questioning McCain’s and Calero’s. He voted for Ron Paul!
I believe the case is based in part on a 1948 British law that says a British father automatically confers British citizenship on any of his children born anywhere in the world. Kenya was part of the British empire in 1961. Certainly legal questions can be raised. And the fact remains — why hasn’t Obama furnished his birth certificate? McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone, knew his citizenship might be an issue and dealt with it publicly.
GO TO YOUR LIBRARY TO OR SUITABLE PLACE (LEST YOU WANT TO STICK WHERE YOU ARE} USE OTHER CPU AS THE PLAINS RADIO FORUM DISPLAYS IP AND POST INTO PLAINS RADIO FORUM REQUESTING THAT ED HALE / PLAINS RADIO BURIES THE HATCHET AND TRANSMITS THESE INTERVIEW TAPES TO FOXNEWS AS SO REQUESTED BY FOXNEWS.
http://pub29.bravenet.com/forum/2442810129/ for above forum page
LEO DONFRIO APPEARS TO BE FINE [Turkey day slight update]
A very few I emailed and I made one single post comment [now update]: What the hell am I [was] listening to [lapping late Weds eve to early Thurs AM] ? A rebroadcast of what sounds like Wednesday Nov 26 [had to be Tues Nov 25 ] Plainsradio listen live. Leo Donofrio is speaking via phone hookup to someone via phone hookup to a JD who is obviously a lawyer asking him in straight prepared questions.
Leo states he has NOT been threatened. HE WAS SLEEPING FOR A COUPLE DAYS. Then another fellow who asks if other material ( passports, student applications) can be entered.. LD seems negative on this. But LD DOES say this AM Courts Case [CW- I thought they were using changed name] ( via Connecticut action) did get docketed today in the US SUPREME COURT. [to USSC docket No. 08A46]
Steve, a young admirer calls in, who had emailed LD w/ LD acknowledging Then another fellow calls in from NY, an man of some age.
The Caren & Eds Friday show button at lower left Nov 21 breaks off after break. HERE [Im 90% sure it was here) ED HALE SAYS HE HAS SNUBBED FOX NEWS REQUEST FOR TAPES OF THE SHOWS. EH expresses great chagrin as Fox didnt want to have anything to do with plainsradio requests to Fox earlier. Ive posted into forum message board polite but ardent request he drop the snub of Fox, that this has to get out!
REPEAT: GO TO YOUR LIBRARY TO OR SUITABLE PLACE (LEST YOU WANT TO STICK WHERE YOU ARE} USE OTHER CPU AS THE PLAINS RADIO FORUM DISPLAYS IP AND POST INTO PLAINS RADIO FORUM REQUESTING THAT ED HALE / PLAINS RADIO BURIES THE HATCHET AND TRANSMITS THESE INTERVIEW TAPES TO FOXNEWS AS SO REQUESTED BY FOXNEWS.
Theyve made their point already.
http://pub29.bravenet.com/forum/2442810129/ for above forum page
So yes- following links etc (while wonderful smells coming from kitchen)
Donofrio has himself posted here:
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz: Clerk Bickell Allegedly Obstructing Justice on Another Emergency Stay Application
November 26th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Today, Leo Donofrio, Plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells, reported on Mr. Cort Wrotnowskis emergency stay case from Connecticut. He says that Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) Clerk Danny Bickell is again denying Mr. Wrotnsowskis motion in similar fashion as he did to Mr. Donofrios (see that whole saga here).
Media alert: Wrotnowski and Donofrio will be interviewed by Bob Vernon on the Plains radio Network at 10:30PM EST; Mr. Donofrio was also on the Scott Hennen show today (MP3). This was the first main stream media exposure of the case. Please see the link and look for an audio file at this blog to be uploaded soon.
SCOTUS Docket: 08a469
A full posting is available below.
PDF document: Connecticut Supreme Court order of Chief Justic Chase Rogers.
TREASON AT SCOTUS? BICKELL OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE AGAIN IN WROTNOWSKI V. CONNECTICUT SECRETARY OF STATE
- Wrotnowski and Donofrio will be interviewed by Bob Vernon on the Plains radio Network at 10:30PM EST.
- Mr. Donofrio was also on the Scott Hennenshow today. This was the first main stream media exposure of the case. Please see the link and look for an audio file at this blog to be uploaded soon.
US Supreme Court stay clerk Danny Bickell is guilty of obstruction of justice for the second time. Yesterday, Cort Wrotnowski filed an emergency stay application in the case WROTNOWSKI V. BYSIEWICZ, CONNECTICUT SECRETARY OF STATE, which is coming directly from a Connecticut Supreme Court order of Chief Justic Chase Rogers.
Mr. Wrotnowski was informed by Danny Bickellthat Mr. Bickell denied Corts motion based on Rule 23.3, the same grounds Mr. Bickell had illegally improperly relied on to obstructDonofrio v. Wells [docket], the same case which is now going before the entire Supreme Court for Conference of Dec. 5th and to which Donofrio has pointed out Mr. Bickell was guilty of attemping to overturn Justice Powells holding in McCarthy v. Briscoe 429 U.S. 1317 n.1 (1976) and Justice OConnerin Western Airlines, Inc. v. Teamsters, 480 U.S. 1301 (1987).
Furthermore, the issue was fully briefed - in the application submitted to the SCOTUS yesterday by Mr. Wrotnowski based on Donofriosresearch, and Donofrios fear that Bickell would try to pull the same obstruction of justice again.
Furthermore, Mr. Bickell is fully aware that the Supreme Court is hearing this issue in full conference despite Bickells best attempts to stop that from happening.
Donofrio (me) believes Mr. Wrotnowskis case is at least as strong as his own, if not stronger. And Donofrio warned Wrotnowski that Bickellwas going to try the same tactic again.
Donofrio was right. Today, Bickell informed Wrotnowski that he was refusing to pass the emergency stay application on to Justice Ginsberg.
In a follow up phone call, Mr. Wrotnowski pointed out to Mr. Bickell that the issues he raised were properly briefed in the application and that it was the job of a Supreme Court Justices to make decisions of substantive law, not Mr. Bickell. Bickell then berated with mocking insults.
Mr. Wrotnowski has been through two lower courts and is now using our US Supreme Court rules to properly petition our Supreme Court for relief. This is outrageous and Mr. Bickell needs to be fired immediately and brought up on criminal charges for obstruction of justice, and possibly treason.
Courageously, Mr. Wrotnowski refused to back down and eventually Bickell said he would, reluctantly, docket the case.
As of 12:38 PM the case has not been docketed.
If you think that justice has been obstructed then please voice your opinions to the appropriate authorities. This is a very urgent issue which is now causing out entire system of justice to be overturned by a single clerk.
[UPDATE. WROTNOWSKI V. BYSIEWICZ, CONNECTICUT SECRETARY OF STATE
has been docketed, despite having initially been denied process by the SCOTUS stay clerk, Danny Bickell. Wrotnowskis case has been submitted to the Honorable Associate Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Circuit Justice for the 2nd Circuit (includes Connecticut).
POSTED BY NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AT 9:12 AM
Below link to a nice picture of Cort- who saw Connecticut trot out some HEAVY lawyerly big guns for the little less-than-an-hour obfuscation finally at hands of State Supreme Court Head “Judge”:
If Fox News is going this far, I would expect them to interview Leo D. directly!
Just to correct you, this forum is WONDERFUL and is in the top 5 for consevitive websites.
Here’s the deal:
At this point, even if one has concluded that Obama most certainly is qualified to be President, or that there is not sufficient evidence to conclude otherwise, it still remains true that, while our Constitution requires an individual to be a “natural born citizen” to be President and Vice President-—
1. No one actually is sure what, given all the available fact permutations, a “natural born citizen” is. IOW, this precise question-—that goes not just to citizenship, but to *qualification to be President*-—is not settled law.
2. Through this public discussion on the qualifications of the candidates (yes, the Left also strongly questions McCain’s status as a “natural born citizen” since he was born in the Republic of Panama, albeit to two U.S. citizens), we have learned that *no one* is charged with actually verifying a President-elect’s eligibility to serve, much less candidate’s eligibility.
Even in states where Secretaries of States have various statutory duties, many have responded to this issue by saying they interpret their duties as “ministerial” only; IOW, they state that “it’s not my job” to figure out if a candidate is constitutional qualified.
While it may be implied that the electors in the Electoral College, or congressmembers can and should verify eligibility, there is no specific responsibility, procedure or other mechanism for doing so. Nor is there, then, any straightforward way for a citizen to have standing to challege the electors or congresscritters for NOT doing what is NOT their explicit duty.
So, at this point, there are many reasons why it would be useful for the Supreme Court to weigh in on this matter, regardless if the nominees were qualified. Even if they refuse cert., at least then citizens will know it is imperative to get better legislative processes to vouchsafe the constitutional requirements.
Viewing this solely as about some attempt to oust Obama is way too myopic. Those chips will lie where they fall.
In the meantime, there are many legal and procedural issues that will only become more frequent in the future, and this is one of the few times in history (maybe the only time) where a candidate about whom there was a citizenship controversy actually won the election. Therefore, it is a unique opportunity for the Court to either settle the law or at least give some helpful guidance on how these questions should be handled.
P.S. In constitutional law, the fact that a legal question or fact pattern is “convoluted” (as you said) usually indicates that there may be some “there” actually there, not the opposite, as you argue.
Radio talk show hosts, however, don’t do “convoluted” because, well, they’re radio talk show hosts. I applaud them for generally not jawboning about issues of constitutional law that they can’t possibly do justice in their format and which even constitutional lawyers are not in agreement on.
Do you think that calling a theory “crack-pot” makes it so?
You do not give the impression of being rational by such name calling. We would suspect that you cannot put forth a rational observation that justifies such criticism of the possibility that very clear language in the Constitution has been ignored in what, if it has been, is obviously a deception that is long-standing.
By such name-calling you give the impression of not being the least bit interested in rational debate. If that is the case you would not seem to be on this forum for the same reason as most who participate in it.
I agree with your analysis, except that radio show hosts are not excused from discussing all matters in their purview and discussing them cogently — including gaining input from various sources on the air, if they wish not to be responsible for their own research and judgment.
...and Chip Program apparently said he is railing against those who wish to bring the process to account through the only means available (SCOTUS).
That’s not avoiding “taking a side” about something he doesn’t know enough about.
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.