Posted on 11/21/2008 4:32:05 PM PST by Upstate NY Guy
WASHINGTON, D.C. – On Wednesday, Nov. 19, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas distributed Leo C. Denofrio’s renewed application for a stay of the election for conference on Dec. 5.
His first application was denied by Justice David Souter on Nov. 6. However, rules of the court allow for the renewed submission to a justice of choice.
Beginning in October, Denofrio made his way up through the ranks of the courts until his constitutional question as to the meaning of “natural born citizen” reached the Supreme Court.
He submitted an application for an emergency stay to prohibit the use of what he called “defective ballots” in the state of New Jersey because they contained ineligible candidates for the office of President of the United States, and asked that the court order New Jersey Secretary of State (SOS) Nina Mitchell Wells to remove the names of Republican candidate John McCain, Democratic candidate Barack Obama and Socialist Workers Party candidate Roger Calero from New Jersey ballots.
According to Denofrio, the three candidates are not “natural born citizens,” as required by the Constitution to hold the office of President of the United States...
New Jersey statute requires Wells to make a“statement” wherein she certifies, under her hand and official seal of office, the names … “of all such candidates for whom the voters within such county may be by law entitled to vote at such election.”...
If the SOS doesn’t protect the citizens of New Jersey, Denofrio states it is then up to the citizens to command Wells to do so.
As a result of Wells’ “misfeasance,” Denofrio says the state’s ballots contain the names of three presidential candidates who are not, “by law entitled,” to hold the office of President of the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at sonorannews.com ...
Velveeta, I never could bring it up on this computer. : (
Editor-surveyor estimated 7-2 against Obama... I think that’s optimistic since the 5-4 on the DC gun ban...
Leo says the New Jersey Supreme Court acted responsibly, it was the Appellate Court that tried to sabotage his pleadings.
Thanks, LucyT
Yes, it wouldn’t download. Please keep me informed, thanks.
Leo says that McCain and Obama campaign attorneys were both notified of Leo’s suit.
Both!?!!
Leo’s site is down again - being attacked.
Relevant portions of Leo’s blog will be and should be distributed amongst the blogoshpere per Lan.
Yep, he says this was during the New Jersey appellate court process that both McCain and Obama’s attorneys were procedurally notifed as they were supposed to have been.
Leo says at 8:15 tonight he posted to his blogtext site about this misconduct charge against Sabatino.
Now, not only Leo’s blogtext site is down, ALL of blogtext.org is down.
Tomorrow, Lan is going to set up a new website for Leo that will be secure.
Now a caller called in to let Leo know that he has a back-up of Leo’s site. Wooo-Hoooo.
He said this is creepy.
In one of his interviews he said at one point, when going to file at the SCOTUS, he’d been experiencing things that were out of a movie like Borne Ultimatum. This is scary..
I have chills.
I pray that Leo stays safe.
I’ll take 5-4, 6-3, 7-2, 8-1, or 9-0. As long as Oblahblah bites the dust. I don’t know enough to make a prediction but in light of Heller 5-4 seems reasonable.
OTOH they could decline to hear it.
I’m so sick of these close elections. Seems like the politicians have figured out how to pander to 50.01% of the voters and to Hell with the good of the country. I miss Reagan.
Me, too.
I’m hopeful, but if we could get 5-4... a Christmas Miracle.
Did you hear Leo say that some ‘funny’ things have been happening with his cell phone, and that he felt like he had been followed?
Scary.
I hope he has self-protection and maybe a body guard.
Leo Donofrio hit the jackpot....
Britsh common law and the constitution:
The term “natural born” citizen has a long history in British common law.(38) In fact, a law passed in 1677 law says that “natural born” citizens include people born overseas to British citizens. This usage was undoubtedly known to John Jay, who had children born overseas while he was serving as a diplomat.(39) It also appears to have been employed by the members of the first Congress, who included many of the people who had participated in the Constitutional Convention. To be specific, The Naturalization Act of 1790, which was passed by this Congress, declared “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens; Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States.”(40)
This history suggests that the Founding Fathers used the term “natural born” as an expansive definition of citizenship, that is, as a way to make certain that people born overseas to American citizens would have the full rights of other American citizens.(41)
A particularly compelling version of this interpretation, with language that applies, inadvertently, no doubt, to foreign-born adoptees, can be found in an article written almost 100 years ago by Alexander Porter Morse.(42) He writes that by drawing on the term so well known from English law, the Founders were recognizing “the law of hereditary, rather than territorial allegiance.”(43) In other words, they were drawing on the English legal tradition, which protected allegiance to the king by conferring citizenship on all children “whose fathers were natural-born subjects,” regardless of where the children were born.(44) Thus, according to Morse, “the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the President should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth.”(45) He goes on to say that the presidential eligibility clause “was scarcely intended to bar the children of American parentage, whether born at sea or in foreign territory.... A natural-born citizen has been defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country.”(46
pissant - I’m getting sick of this guy. Does anyone have any idea if what he’s saying about going to conference is true? I have less than no idea about any of this legal SCOTUS stuff.
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.