Leo Donofrio Supreme Court Update, 12-6-08

As has been reported by Leo Donofrio’s own site, Natural Born Citizen, his suit against Barack Obama, John McCain and  Roger Calero was to be heard in conference before all nine justices yesterday, December 5th, 2008. Here is what is being reported in the Washington Times today:

The Supreme Court held off Friday on deciding whether to grant a hearing in a long-shot lawsuit that would decide whether Barack Obama can constitutionally become president as a “natural born” U.S. citizen.

The Friday list of court orders that denies or grants hearings did not mention the lawsuit, which says Mr. Obama should be disqualified from the presidency because he purportedly acquired the same British citizenship that his father had when he was born.

A spokesman for the court said the decision on whether to hear the suit brought by retired New Jersey lawyer Leo Donofrio is likely to be announced next week.

My theory after reading  the snip from the WT is that the justices conferenced about this case yesterday, know that Donofrio has all his ducks in a row, and are trying to figure out how to throw this nuclear potato at someone else.  As Shtuey has said several times, the social contract has definitely been broken.

Advertisements
Comments
18 Responses to “Leo Donofrio Supreme Court Update, 12-6-08”
  1. Ted says:

    Seems the Supreme Court is waiting to hear from me before issuing a decision on Donofrio, so here goes: While the Court is more than loathe to enter this dispute, currently it has no choice (thanks to the audacious one — and I don’t mean Leo, I mean Barack) and the ONLY WAY to bring closure, knowing CLOSURE IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL before any Presidential inauguration, is to back the original intent of the Constitution, meaning, Obama is NOT an Article II “natural born citizen” (albeit Obama may or may not be a “citizen”, a question heated by the steadfast refusal of the DNC or any of the Secretaries of State to require his birth certificate, which the Court will now not have to confront).

  2. JEA says:

    Next time you move to another state and need a new driver’s license, try this: Refuse to produce the birth certificate or any other personal information required by the Department of Motor Vehicles. Just explain that a facsimile of the required document is posted on your website and give the clerk the domain name.
    Tell them: “I’m following the example of President-elect Barack Obama. If he didn’t need to produce a birth certificate to establish his eligibility to be president of the United States, why would you require me to produce one to get a lousy driver’s license?”
    See if it flies.
    Joseph Harah
    Mr. Vieira cited a fraud ruling in a 1977 case called U.S. v. Prudden, which he feels applies in this case.
    “Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading,” the ruling reads.
    Edwin Viera

  3. Phyllis Kunz says:

    There is no doubt in my mind that
    The Supreme Court will abide by the
    Consitution. Enough said.

  4. Diamond Tiger says:

    Oh Phyllis – I am really hoping that you will not be disappointed.

  5. Lynn from Texas says:

    I’m hopeful the end result is two-fold:

    1-Eventual release of long-form vault copy of Obama birth certificate

    2-Definition by Supreme Court of “natural born citizen”. Does it simply mean “born on U.S. soil” or “born on U.S. soil with 2 U.S. citizens as parents”?

    I’m afraid the Supreme Court will pass on this hot potato. Does potato have an “e” at the end?

  6. Will says:

    Nothing Obama produces will ever satisfy the fanatics who wish to overturn an election that he won by 8 million votes. That is why he offers you no more than he already has.

  7. John says:

    The only thing that Obama has to supply is his vault long form birth certificate, his college application and any document that he may have used to travel to Pakistan when he was in 20s. If he produces that and there is no doubt that he is a citizen then SO BE IT !!! Instead he has spent millions on keeping these documents sealed and away from the very public he claims to serve. Can’t you Obama Kool- aid drinkers see that. $10 is all it will take to prove he is a citizen. There is no need to ask why he hasn’t produced it because anyone with a brain larger than a paramecium knows the easiest soulution is produce the birth certificate, Don’t say he has unless you provide links to the sites he has pposted it. The one at Fight the Smears has already been admitted by Jay McKinnon that he forged that. If he doesn’t he is a usurper plain and simple and is not the President of the United States no matter how bad you wish it so.

  8. Will says:

    “$10 is all it will take to prove he is a citizen.”

    Already been proven, evidence already produced. You’re simply incapable of accepting that the election is over. I’m sorry for you.

  9. Texas Voter says:

    Will, you’re an idiot. Read the constitution someday, ok? His birth certificate (if it exists at all in Hawaii) is IRRELAVENT. He admits to being a Kenyan citizen at birth, on his OWN FREAKING WEBSITE, no less! DUH! SEVERAL case rulings from the Supreme Court have established that a “natural born” citizen must be born from TWO US citizens. NOT ONE. TWO. Moreover, Obama held dual citizenship at the time of his birth. What part of this VERY SIMPLE FACT are you and the rest of the mindless Obamadrones not grasping? The MSM has played DUMB for the last year! This is probably why you still don’t GET IT. It’s been people like me, amd MILLIONS of others across the country who HAVE read and UNDERSTAND the Constitution as it was meant to be understood and FOLLOWED. Jeeez, you people make me sick.

  10. diane thornton says:

    will…..that’s the problem. there is no evidence. Not proven.

    Obama knows he’s not qualified.

  11. DavidRM says:

    In all fairness, I think it’s important to mention that Leo Donofrio’s argument opposes the eligibility of Barack Obama, John McCain, and Roger Calero. Not just Obama. There is no partisanship here concerning his argument. It is purely Constitutional.

    If the Constitution is not upheld in its strictest form, since it is the backbone and the highest authority of all Law in the U.S., then it has been proven that corruption has degraded what this country was founded on.

    The election is not over. The citizen-vote does not elect a President, and there is not a President-elect until the Electoral College votes have been counted. There’s a few other barriers that any candidate must have to get through before they finally become President.

    All this hooplah about the citizen-elected candidate being in the White House come Jan. 20th and calling him Pres-Elect is just a way to start getting the general population excited and loyal to them, so the citizens are prepared and in a way mesmerized.

    If Barack Obama becomes President legally without question and without further corruption of our justice system to be so, then I applaud him for his accomplishment and only ask that he be the best President we’ve ever had.

    But regardless, he ran on a platform of transparency and change, and his wily methods of dodging this issue is hihgly contradictory to his words. Plus, look at the goofs he’s selected for his Cabinet so far. Change?

    Good Luck America. He’s already admitted to being a British Subject on his own web site!

    P.s. I made a political cartoon concerning Donofrio. You can view it on my newly created blog spot:

    http://politicode.blogspot.com/

  12. baj says:

    A draft of a speech for Obama this week:

    “In accordance with the ruling of the Supreme Court – the finding that I am not a Natural Born citizen – I am withdrawing my name as a candidate for President of the United States. I sincerely apologize to my supporters, my donors, and all others who voted for me in good faith. I’m sorry. What I did was wrong.

    I’ve also requested that the DNC instead place the name of Hillary Rodham Clinton before the electors for their choice as President of the US next week. Mrs. Clinton would have clearly won the nomination if I had not been in the primaries, and I believe my supporters would have voted for her. I urge them to support her now, and I will personally do everything I can to ensure a smooth transfer of power to her in 2009. I am available to help this next administration succeed in whatever way I can.

    I know that this change will be a shock to many, but the Supreme Court is correct in its ruling. We are first and foremost a nation of laws, and the Constitution is the law of the land. Thank you for your support. God bless you, and God bless America.”

  13. While I appreciate the nuances of Mr. Donofrio’s argument, he is conflating the issue. There is never any mention about dual citizenship in the constitution or in U.S. law. The U.S. is one of a few countries that does not have a policy concerning dual citizneship, and never has had one. Even more importantly, however, the dual-citizenship argument is a red herring. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. It doesn’t matter who his parents were, how old they were, what coutnry they came from. He was born in the U.S.: he is a natural born citizen, period. Whether some other countries laws might consider him a citizen or not is immaterial. U.S. law does not concern itself with other countries’ statutes. Millions of Americans might be considered citizens by other countries, completely unbeknownst to them. It doesn’t make them less fully American. If Mr. Obama had renounced U.S. citizenship in favor of the U.K. or Kenya, and then later regained citizenship, than their might be a case, but in this suit the reasoning is faulty and inserts additional requirements for citizenship where there are none. If Mr. Donofrio were correct, then a foreign country could simply change its laws to recognize every single American as a citizen and we would all lose our status as “full” Americans and then noone could run for President. In effect, Mr. Donofrio is saying that other countries’ parliaments decide law in the U.S..

  14. Diamond Tiger says:

    Patrick, I appreciate your opinion but I think the whole point of this case is to get some kind of ruling from the SC about what is actually a natural born citizen. Here is a question for you…would not Barack Obama be ineligible to be the president since he was adopted and became an Indonesian citizen at age 6 (Barry Soetoro)? Indonesia does not recognize dual citizenship and it was probably an indonesian passport that Barry travelled on when he visited Pakistan at a time when Pakistan was not allowing Americans to visit.

    Thoughts?

  15. DavidRM says:

    Patrick, you raise a very good point. One I thought about too. But let’s observe the first third of Article 2, Section 1, of the US Constitution:

    “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.”

    The people who drafted the Constitution and enacted it were the ones who escaped British rule. They also considered their ownselves US Citizens, besides being British Citizens too (even though they fled). Because of this British ownership of themselves, which they could’ve erased, they included the “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” as a way to explicitly say they themselves were not natural born Citizens per their British citizenship. The special clause allowed them the opportunity to become President even though Britain claimed them also.

    Thye clause strongly, undoubtedly, implies that a natural born Citizen is someone who is purely American, that holds no ties to another country. This protects the US’s integrity from any political invasion; just imagine if a terrorist group had their country change any dual citizenship laws they had to make sure that they could come to the US, have some kids, teach them terrorist ways but keep it under the radar, set them up for presidency, and win. It’s not a concern that it leaves out millions of people from the opportunity. If that was so, then equality would have to exist in every aspect of life. The NFL would have to let disabled people play, for instance. But I don’t hear disabled people crying about it.

    If other countries changed their statutes to do one over on America, that would be a very dark day for not only the US, but also the world. At the same time, there’d be generations of US Citizens to still choose from.

    Patrick, I understand your point, but it’s not strictly constitutional, and allows for a better chance of letting danger in.

  16. Craig says:

    “If other countries changed their statutes to do one over on America, that would be a very dark day for not only the US, but also the world. At the same time, there’d be generations of US Citizens to still choose from.”

    Better yet, we continue doing things as we do now and always have – by not letting other countries tell us who we can and cannot elect as our president.

    I think it is very perplexing that Mr. Donofrio is championing an interpretation of the Constitution that strips us of so much power and hands it over to our enemies.

  17. DavidRM says:

    Craig,

    It’s not that we’re letting other countries tell us who we can or cannot elect, it is us protecting the nation’s interest from those who it might not be a good idea to elect.

    I wrote up an easy-to-follow explanation that is strictly constitutional regarding the Citizenship Debate on my blog.

    http://politicode.blogspot.com/

Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying...


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

  • An Anthem For The Revolution

  • Thomas Jefferson

    "On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 1823

  • The Looting Of America

%d bloggers like this: