Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Thomas Breaks Tradition: Forces Supreme Court to Look at Obama Citizenship Case
THE AFRO-AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS ^ | 12/3/08 | James Wright, AFRO Staff Reporter

Posted on 12/03/2008 11:43:31 PM PST by BP2

 
U.S. Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas
By James Wright
AFRO Staff Writer

(December 3, 2008) - In a highly unusual move, U.S. Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has asked his colleagues on the court to consider the request of an East Brunswick, N.J. attorney who has filed a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama’s status as a United States citizen.

Thomas’s action took place after Justice David Souter had rejected a petition known as an application for a stay of writ of certiorari that asked the court to prevent the meeting of the Electoral College on Dec. 15, which will certify Obama as the 44th president of the United States and its first African-American president.

The court has scheduled a Dec. 5 conference on the writ -- just 10 days before the Electoral College meets.

The high court’s only African American is bringing the matter to his colleagues as a result of the writ that was filed by attorney Leo Donofrio. Donofrio sued the New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Wells, contending that Obama was not qualified to be on the state’s presidential ballot because of Donofrio’s own questions about Obama citizenship.

Donofrio is a retired lawyer who identifies himself as a “citizen’s advocate.” The AFRO learned that he is a contributor to naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com, a Web site that raises questions about Obama’s citizenship.

Calls made to Donofrio’s residence were not returned to the AFRO by press time.

Donofrio is questioning Obama’s citizenship because the former Illinois senator, whose mom was from Kansas, was born in Hawaii and his father was a Kenyan national. Therefore, Donofrio argues, Obama’s dual citizenship does not make Obama “a natural born citizen” as required by Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution, which states:

“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…”

...to prevent the meeting of the Electoral College on Dec. 15, which
will certify Obama as the 44th president of the United States...

Donofrio had initially tried to remove the names not only of Obama, but also the names of Republican Party presidential nominee John McCain and Socialist Workers’ Party Roger Calero from appearing on the Nov. 4 general election ballot in his home state of New Jersey.

McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone when it was a U.S. possession. Calero would be ineligible to be president because he was born in Nicaragua.
After his efforts were unsuccessful in the New Jersey court system, he decided to take his case to a higher level.

On Nov. 6, Souter denied the stay. Donofrio, following the rules of the procedure for the Supreme Court, re-submitted the application as an emergency stay in accordance to Rule 22, which states, in part, that an emergency stay can be given to another justice, which is the choice of the petitioner.

Donofrio’s choice was Thomas. He submitted the emergency stay to Thomas’s office on Nov. 14.  Thomas accepted the application on Nov. 19 and on that day, submitted it for consideration by his eight colleagues - known as a conference - and scheduled it for Dec. 5.

On Nov. 26, a supplemental brief was filed by Donofrio to the clerk’s office of the Supreme Court. A letter to the court explaining the reason for the emergency stay was filed on Dec. 1 at the clerk’s office.

Thomas’s actions were rare because, by custom, when a justice rejects a petition from his own circuit, the matter is dead. Even if, as can be the case under Rule 22, the matter can be submitted to another justice for consideration, that justice out of respect, will reject it also, said Trevor Morrison, a professor of law at Columbia University School of Law.

Morrison said that Thomas’s actions are once in a decade.  “When that does happen, the case has to be of an extraordinary nature and this does not fit that circumstance,” he said. “My guess would be that Thomas accepted the case so it would go before the conference where it will likely be denied. If Thomas denied the petition, then Donofrio would be free to go to the other justices for their consideration.  

“This way, I would guess, the matter would be done with.  Petitions of Donofrio’s types are hardly ever granted.”

Traditionally, justices do not respond to media queries, according to a spokesman from the Supreme Court Public Information Office.

Thomas was appointed to the Supreme Court by President George H.W. Bush in 1991 and has been one of its most conservative members.

Before his ascension to the court, he was appointed by Bush to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Earlier, he served as chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - appointed by President Reagan - and worked various jobs under former Republican Sen. John Danforth.

It would take a simple majority of five justices to put Donofrio’s emergency stay on the oral argument docket. Because it is an emergency by design, the argument would take place within days.

Donofrio wants the court to order the Electoral College to postpone its Dec. 15 proceedings until it rules on the Obama citizenship. He is using the 2000 case Bush vs. Gore case as precedent, arguing that it is of such compelling national interest that it should be given priority over other cases on the court’s docket.

“The same conditions apply here,” Donofrio said in his letter to the court, “as the clock is ticking down to Dec. 15, the day for the Electoral College to meet.”

Audrey Singer, a senior fellow at Washington’s Brookings Institution, who is an expert on immigration, said that the Donofrio matter is “going nowhere.”

“There is no way that anyone can argue about whether Barack Obama is a citizen,” Singer said. “In this country, we have a system known as jus soli or birthright by citizenship. You are a citizen by being born on American soil and he (Obama) was born in Hawaii.”

Singer said that Donofrio’s argument that Obama’s father was a Kenyan national does not matter because citizenship is not based on parentage, but on where someone was born.

“This is the issue that some people have with illegal aliens in our country,” she said. “Children of illegal aliens, if they are born in the United States, are U.S. citizens. That is in the U.S. Constitution.”

 



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bho2008; birthcertificate; case; certifigate; constitution; court; lawsuit; naturalborncitizen; notthisshiitagain; obama; obamatransitionfile; obamatruthfile; president; scotus; supreme; supremecourt; take; talkradioignores; tinfoil
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 921-922 next last
To: John Valentine

Well said John Valentine!!!!


181 posted on 12/04/2008 6:13:37 AM PST by Sorry screen name in use
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Wrong. Armed forces members married to US citizens on orders to be overseas are always considered as having US natural born children regardless of where the child is born.

The same holds true for any child born to American citizen parents overseas. It is not confined to the Armed Forces.

182 posted on 12/04/2008 6:14:27 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: motoman
Those are all good questions, but if Donofrio is not contending such concerns in his case, then how would they ever be brought up in court?

...by SCOTUS requiring the NJ SoS to present whatever documentation (if any) it used to vet the candidates. The COLB that has been published seems to be no better than a note from his mother so I doubt SCOTUS will accept that as proof now or in the future. This is what I believe will lead us back to the long form BC.

BTW, I'm not a lawyer and I have never stayed at a Holiday Inn Express!

183 posted on 12/04/2008 6:17:28 AM PST by Roccus (Someday it'll all make sense.............maybe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: kabar
Thank you very much, my prev post was an imagined scenario though as I already knew the child would certainly be eligible to run for POTUS.

Actually I post on these threads for the benefit of lurkers or other interested parties so they don't go away thinking all of FR are a rabid pack of lunatics, many who now tout a document, our Constitution, that they obviously never once read. Though now, because some hack lawyer wants to become famous the Constitution is the hot topic with the boys gathering outside WaWa or AllParts stores.

184 posted on 12/04/2008 6:18:24 AM PST by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Buckarow
I for one hope to color him gone

thats racist within pdf Pictures, Images and Photos

185 posted on 12/04/2008 6:20:04 AM PST by MrB (The 0bamanation: Marxism, Infanticide, Appeasement, Depression, Thuggery, and Censorship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: kabar
I understand it is the way they are being practiced. It sure is not the way they are written. The 14th is being misread for political reasons to conclude that black is white and up is down. If you buy that horsehillery then you must the the “collective right” interpretation of 2A since some liberal judge told you that is what it means.
186 posted on 12/04/2008 6:20:40 AM PST by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: kabar

“What is the definition of natural born? There are three ways to become a US citizen, birth thru blood, jus sanguinis; birth on US soil, jus solis; and naturalization. The first two are, IMO, natural born. If Obama was born in the US, he is a natural born US citizen. If he was born in Kenya, then he has a problem.

Birth on US soil=native-born. But this is NOT, as some here seem to think, equivalent to “natural born.” If the framers had wanted to simply tie eligibility to being native-born, they would have used that term. In reality, at the time of the Constitution, native-born children were NOT automatically citizens. http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html

Whoever suggested natural born is restricted to a person who is a US citizen both jus sanguis and jus solis has a good idea. But if that were the intent of the framers it’s hard to understand why the first Immigration statute labelled those born abroad of 2 US citzens “natural born.” Admittedly, this was repealed 5 years later with identical language that still accorded such individuals automatic citizenship, but removed the term “natural born.” The point is IF the framers believed the jus sanguis + jus solis definition of natural born, this statute would not make sense.

However, this does not preclude viewing “natural born” as being restricted to individuals whose allegiance is undivided.


187 posted on 12/04/2008 6:26:19 AM PST by DrC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: TChris
"For the gazillionth time... The Constitution requires that the President be a Natural born citizen, not just a citizen."

So what's your point? He's disqualified because of a C Section? Stop wasting our time posting this crap. Never going to happen.

188 posted on 12/04/2008 6:29:04 AM PST by Mr_Peter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kabar

“The same holds true for any child born to American citizen parents overseas. “

Except there are conditions about those non-military parents and none on military parents on orders.


189 posted on 12/04/2008 6:34:37 AM PST by CodeToad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

“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…”

If I am understanding this correctly, a Natural born citizen, is a person who was born on U.S. soil by parents who both were born on U.S. soil.

A U.S. citizen who was born on U.S. soil but one of his parents was born in another country could have become President only during the time that the Constitution was being adopted. After the Constitution was adopted, this person would not be qulified. And the reason he would not qualify is 1) He doesn’t fall under the definition of a Natural Born citizen and 2). He was not a U.S. citizen during the period when the Constitution was being adopted.

Is this correct?


190 posted on 12/04/2008 6:37:51 AM PST by classified
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jcsjcm
Actually I believe he could be a citizen at best (not natural born) or an illegal alien. There is no way they can put him as natural born having a father that was not a US citizen at the time of his birth. Here are 2 cases that may help:

Case 1: The Case Perkins v. ELG, 307 U.S> 325 (1939) this expands and refers on the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark's case definition of nationality.

Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, NY on October 2, 1907. Her parents who were natives of Sweden emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906 and her father was naturalized here in that year. Perkins v. Elg 307 U.S. 325, 327 (1939)

Elg is a Citizen of the United States. Perkins v Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 328 (1939) Citizenship Matrix = 1 foreigner parent (Sweden) and 1 U.S. citizen parent (naturalized by US statute) and born in Brooklyn, NY.

Case 2: The facts were these: One Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 330 (1939).

‘Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 330 (1939). Citizenship Matrix = 2 US Citizen parents (at least one naturalized by US statute) AND Born in St. Louis, MO (USA)

THANKS -- IT DOES HELP !!!

191 posted on 12/04/2008 6:38:49 AM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
The end of the constitutional republic?
192 posted on 12/04/2008 6:40:03 AM PST by EternalVigilance (AIPNEWS.com - America's Independent Party: "Peace through superior firepower!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: MileHi

No, what I am saying is that actual practice will have a major impact on whatever ruling, if any, SCOTUS makes in this case. Our current laws imbue anyone born on our soil, except for the children born to accredited diplomats, full citizens of this country entitled to all of the rights and privileges that entails. You may consider the 14th amendment to be “misread,” but it is being misread by our own government.


193 posted on 12/04/2008 6:40:28 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: kabar

It has not been read that way by SCOTUS. They may address it now.


194 posted on 12/04/2008 6:47:16 AM PST by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Bump to ya’


195 posted on 12/04/2008 6:50:19 AM PST by Helen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DrC
Birth on US soil=native-born. But this is NOT, as some here seem to think, equivalent to “natural born.”

Aside from the current contretemps over whether Obama is eligible for the Presidency or not, this is a distinction without a difference. Can you cite any differences between the citizenship of a native born and natural born citizen under existing law and practice? How is birthright citizenship, jus solis, any different from jus sanguinis citizenship under law?

The point is IF the framers believed the jus sanguis + jus solis definition of natural born, this statute would not make sense.

It makes sense because we were a new nation whose residents were formerly citizens of other countries. For very real and practical reasons, we recognized two forms of natural born citizenship, jus sanguinis and jus solis. They are different for very obvious reasons.

196 posted on 12/04/2008 6:50:31 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

“pretty sure” and “solid tradtion” do not apply when interpreting the Constitution.


197 posted on 12/04/2008 6:51:29 AM PST by Helen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

See my post #164.


198 posted on 12/04/2008 6:52:03 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: DrC

Does anyone here remember how Barack Obama, Sr, acquired his British Citizenship? From Kenya, or via the UK direct on his travels?

It's a very relavant question in how the Justice may discuss this issue tomorrow...


199 posted on 12/04/2008 6:54:24 AM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine; kabar
NO case heard in the Supreme Court has EVER held that birthright citizenship is granted under the 14th Amendment to the children of people in the United States illegally. Or legally, for that matter, if not admitted as immigrants.

Good Point!!!!

200 posted on 12/04/2008 6:55:48 AM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 921-922 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson