Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

US SC refuses to take up Obama citizenship case

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
MiniMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 01:32 PM
Original message
US SC refuses to take up Obama citizenship case
Washington - The US Supreme Court on Monday rejected a case filed by a New Jersey voter who questioned whether president-elect Barack Obama was a "natural born" American, a prerequisite for running for the White House.

In the case, plaintiff Leo Donofrio also alleged that Obama's rival for the presidency, Republican John McCain, was not an American citizen from birth because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936.

The Zone was controlled by the United States until 1979.

The court did not give a reason for rejecting the case, which was the second such challenge the justices have refused to take up in recent weeks.

In the earlier case, which the court threw out on the eve of the historic election in which Obama beat McCain to become the first African-American to be elected president of the United States, Pennsylvania lawyer Philip Berg alleged that Obama was born in Kenya, his father's homeland.

According to a birth certificate for Obama made public by his campaign, the president-elect was born in Hawaii in August 1961, two years after the archipelago became a state.

The US constitution provides the framework for the law on who is a citizen, saying in the 14th amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Laws passed since the constitution are more specific about who is a citizen at birth.

They include anyone born inside the United States, a person born in a US possession if one parent is a citizen and lived in the United States for at least a year; and anyone born outside the United States to at least one US-citizen parent who has lived in the US for a minimum of five years.

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/world/12/08/08/us-sc-refuses...


from MSNBC:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28111773 /

Court won't review Obama's eligibility to serve
Suit claimed Obama was British-born and not a 'natural born' U.S. citizen

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court has turned down an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who says President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he was a British subject at birth.

The court did not comment on its order Monday rejecting the call by Leo Donofrio of East Brunswick, N.J., to intervene in the presidential election.

Donofrio says that since Obama had dual nationality at birth his mother was American and his Kenyan father at the time was a British subject he cannot possibly be a "natural born citizen," one of the requirements the Constitution lists for eligibility to be president.
Donofrio also contends that two other candidates, Republican John McCain and Socialist Workers candidate Roger Calero, also are not natural-born citizens and thus ineligible to be president.

More at the MSNBC link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rateyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
1. The Constitution wins again. Methinks I hear the sound of
exploding freeper heads.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BOSSHOG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Isn't it a hoot
to listen and read right wing trash blather on about the need to stick to the letter of the law by gawd. And for the past eight years they've done everything they can not to. Conservatives view the constitution as a weapon. Sick motherfuckers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. Bingo
They are batshit crazy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rateyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #2
14. Bunch of mindless dolts. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MiniMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. I think that's the definition of freeper
at least in my mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
3. Good for the Supreme Court...
and I note that Donofrio also thinks that McCain isn't eligible, so who DOES he think should be president?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
4. I suspect the Supreme's had a bit of a chuckle over this one!
Mr. Donofrio may not like it, but Hawaii IS one of our 50 States!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MiniMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. This wingnut didn't even claim that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii
He said that since his father was Kenyan he was born with dual citizenship. Dumbass
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ganja Ninja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
5. Take that you crazy ass freepers!
Why does every court that this suit and other similar law suits have been brought before dismiss them? Because it's a suit about nothing! Obama's birth certificate in Hawaii is legit, deal with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
47of74 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
7. Get over it freepers
Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States. So in the words of your favorite scum bag talking heads, "SHUT UP!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
9. I think we should bombard Washington Journal with emails
about this and suggest that their hosts shoot down this lie loonies are allowed to spew daily on their program.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MiniMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Great idea
I supposed it depends on the host. I wouldn't count on Gretchen though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
11. hmm ... "natural born" ...
does this mean that "Caesarian" birth candidates can't run for Prez?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MiniMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. And no drugs for Mama when they give birth
To hell with all that pain, it must be totally natural.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Interesting in a hypertechnical sort of way.
Hardly anyone survived Caesarian birth in those days and mothers never did. (It was only done if the mother died in childbirth and a last-ditch effort was made to save the baby. It hardly ever worked because if the mother died, then the baby had no oxygen.) I doubt, therefore, that the issue would have occurred to the Founders.

Still, it seems pretty clear that meant natural as opposed to naturalized. They wanted to avoid the practice of allowing foreign officials to run the USA as a puppet state for other countries the way France and England did with colonies and less powerful European states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 04:51 PM
Response to Original message
16. Good, now can we impeach Clarence Thomas for wasting the court's time? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MiniMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 07:38 PM
Response to Original message
17. evening bump
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 29th 2014, 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC