›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

The Donofrio Case

HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
edited December 2008 in Politics
It looks like the Berg case will go down in flames but the Donofrio looks to have a chance.

Donofrio Blog

Unlike the issues of standing in the Berg case the Donofrio case is against the NJ Secretary of State, a person who has the responsibility of checking the eligibility of candidates before putting their names on the ballot. It is also important to note that the Donofrio case does not just target Obama but also McCain and Roger Calero. Calero was later found to have been born in Nicaragua yet the SoS did not remove his name from the ballot.

The Donofrio case has also made its way through the State Courts (unlike the Berg case that went through Federal Courts.)

When you read the Donofrio blog you have to feel for the guy, reporters are constantly misrepresenting his case and confusing it with the Berg case. We should know on Friday if this case goes anywhere with SCOTUS.

JONATHAN TURLEY (a legal scholar) will be on MSNBC's Count Down tonight to talk about the case.
«1

Comments

  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    I can't possibly see how this case can have a chance, since Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, 2 years after Hawaii became a state. He was born on US soil and is thus a natural-born citizen.

    The real problem is that "natural born citizen" is not defined anywhere in the Constitution. However, being born on US soil, even to non-US citizens, automatically makes someone "natural-born." That's been established.

    Sorry, but as much as (some) people want to feel for the guy, he's just being butthurt.
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    he's just being butthurt
    Couldn't have said it better myself.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    The Donofrio case is not about where he was born but instead focuses on the issue of Obama's dual-citizenship at birth. The case is also about the Secretary of State not doing its job by allowing unqualified candidates to appear on the ballot (Roger Calero).

    The point I care about in this case is that of whose job it is to insure that when a candidate files to be on the ballot they are indeed eligible to serve as POTUS.

    I don't expect the Supreme Court to take the case. I expect them to send it back to the lower courts to be resolved.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited December 2008
    I don't expect the Supreme Court to take the case. I expect them to send it back to the lower courts to be resolved.
    That's not the way it works. If the Supreme Court doesn't grant cert, the case is over and the ruling from the lower court stands. If the Supreme Court doesn't grant cert, there is nothing to resolve.

    There is nothing about this case that makes it any different than the Berg case with respect to standing. It doesn't matter that this guy sued a different person, it doesn't matter what type of "citizenship" issue he thinks is important, and it especially doesn't matter if the case started in a state court rather than a federal court. The same standing analysis applies.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    The Donofrio case is not about where he was born but instead focuses on the issue of Obama's dual-citizenship at birth. The case is also about the Secretary of State not doing its job by allowing unqualified candidates to appear on the ballot (Roger Calero).

    The point I care about in this case is that of whose job it is to insure that when a candidate files to be on the ballot they are indeed eligible to serve as POTUS.

    I don't expect the Supreme Court to take the case. I expect them to send it back to the lower courts to be resolved.
    The Calero thing is good, because there's something legitimate there. As for dual citizenship, Obama was a citizen of the United States at birth (natural-born citizen). I can't possibly see how having an additional citizenship can hamper that in any capacity. The Constitution never says that you must only be a citizen of the US.
  • RymRym
    The Constitution never says that you mustonlybe a citizen of the US.
    The law does, however. As far as I'm aware, the US does not recognize dual-citizenship. Most of my Canadian friends, who had "dual-citizenship," were only so to Canada: they were forced to swear off their Canadian citizenship to the US, but retained it in Canada.
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    The Constitution never says that you mustonlybe a citizen of the US.
    The law does, however. As far as I'm aware, the US does not recognize dual-citizenship. Most of my Canadian friends, who had "dual-citizenship," were only so to Canada: they were forced to swear off their Canadian citizenship to the US, but retained it in Canada.
    The State Department thinks otherwise.

    You won't find laws regarding dual citizenship in the US code or the CFR, anywhere. There are just rules about how one becomes a US citizen, and not about what to do with any other citizenship they may have.
  • RymRym
    edited December 2008
    "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
    From what I read, naturalized citizens of the United States must effectively renounce their foreign citizenship as above, and that furthermore this was enforced to some degree in the past. But, it also appears that no efforts have been made to follow up or prosecute on this basis for many, many years, as there is no requirement in the law for the person taking the oath to present their statement to their previous government.

    Other nations have similar oaths, which similarly are not enforced, so it's entirely plausible that a former US Citizen, gaining a foreign citizenship, may well have been forced to renounce to said foreign state his US citizenship, yet would not have presented this fact to the United States itself. Of course, this seems like it would be a violation of the foreign law, and not of US law.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • George PatchesGeorge Patches
    What's going to happen if they find Obama ineligible? Is Biden the POTUS or McCain?
  • RymRym
    What's going to happen if they find Obama ineligible?
    They won't. It's an amazingly moot issue. If they somehow did, riots aside, it would be Biden.
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    "I hereby declare, on oath, thatI absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
    From what I read, naturalized citizens of the United States must effectively renounce their foreign citizenship as above, and that furthermore this was enforced to some degree in the past. But, it also appears that no efforts have been made to follow up or prosecute on this basis for many, many years, as there is no requirement in the law for the person taking the oath to present their statement to their previous government.

    Other nations have similar oaths, which similarly are not enforced, so it's entirely plausible that a former US Citizen, gaining a foreign citizenship, may well have been forced to renounce to said foreign state his US citizenship, yet would not have presented this fact to the United States itself. Of course, this seems like it would be a violation of the foreign law, and not of US law.
    Right, you have to take the oath. However, there's no specific requirement stating that you actually have to legally renounce a foreign citizenship. The requirements for naturalization make no mention of upholding the oath, only the requirement to take it, and the law of the oath itself makes no mention of the need to legally renounce a foreign citizenship. Further, in the law regarding revocation of naturalization, there is no statement regarding maintenance of a foreign citizenship, except where maintaining such citizenship would have made you ineligible for naturalization in the first place. So, the US DOES legally recognize dual citizenship, in that you are not required by the US to legally renounce a foreign citizenship; you're only required to take (not necessarily uphold) an oath stating such, and whether or not that constitutes legal revocation is dependent on the law of the other nation(s) in question.

    But, as you said, this is all a ridiculously moot point, as Obama was a citizen at birth, and that section of the law makes no mention regarding dual citizenship either.

    tl;dr: Suck it, Republicans.
  • George PatchesGeorge Patches
    edited December 2008
    They won't. It's an amazingly moot issue. If they somehow did, riots aside, it would be Biden.
    I was just pondering the what if. I don't think this holds much water either.

    Speaking of what if's, does the vice-president have to be natural born as well?

    EDIT
    Nevermind, 12th amendment addresses this.
    Post edited by George Patches on
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Why would there be riots if he was found to be ineligible? This would not be a repeat of "selected not elected" but would instead be a case of fraud in that a Presidential candidate mislead the nation into believing he was eligible. Any blame would have to fall on the shoulders of Obama and the DNC for allowing him to become the candidate.

    I would like to know why the NJ SoS did not investigate the eligibility of the candidates before allowing them to be on the ballot. The fact that Calero was found to be ineligible can only help Donofrio's case.

    In the end Obama will be found to be a natural born citizen and the next POTUS so what is the danger in this case going before SCOTUS?
  • George PatchesGeorge Patches
    In the end Obama will be found to be a natural born citizen and the next POTUS so what is the danger in this case going before SCOTUS?
    The danger is that while it is very unlikely he'll be declared ineligible, there is still a small chance it could happen. A lot of people in this country really want him to be president so this really could result in riots.

    The far more likely scenario is that the court hears the case and delays his inauguration until it's sorted, which would again piss off a lot of people.
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    Why would there be riots if he was found to be ineligible? This would not be a repeat of "selected not elected" but would instead be a case of fraud in that a Presidential candidate mislead the nation into believing he was eligible. Any blame would have to fall on the shoulders of Obama and the DNC for allowing him to become the candidate.

    I would like to know why the NJ SoS did not investigate the eligibility of the candidates before allowing them to be on the ballot. The fact that Calero was found to be ineligible can only help Donofrio's case.

    In the end Obama will be found to be a natural born citizen and the next POTUS so what is the danger in this case going before SCOTUS?
    The danger is 0. Absolutely 0. So, instead of wasting my tax dollars on a useless case, I'd prefer if SCOTUS heard cases that meant something. I'm not a fan of wasted effort.
  • YoshoKatanaYoshoKatana
    I'm not a fan of wasted effort.
    Exactly.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited December 2008
    Two cases were granted cert today. Donofrio wasn't one of them.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    The case may well not be granted cert. Personally I would rather this issue be cleared up before he becomes President than after.

    Obama Fomenting A Constitutional Crisis: Constitutional Lawyer Discusses Ramifications Of Controversy
    Edwin Vieira, a constitutional lawyer who has practiced for 30 years and holds four degrees from Harvard, said if it were to be discovered Mr. Obama were not eligible for the presidency, it would cause many problems. They would be compounded if his ineligibility were discovered after he had been in office for a period of time.

    "Let's assume he wasn't born in the U.S.," Mr. Vieira told The Bulletin. "What's the consequence? He will not be eligible. That means he cannot be elected validly. The people and the Electoral College cannot overcome this and the House of Representatives can't make him president. So what's the next step? He takes the oath of office, and assuming he's aware he's not a citizen, then it's a perjured oath."

    Any appointments made by an ineligible president would have to be recalled, and their decisions would be invalidated.
    I fail to understand why so many people think this is about taking the Presidency away from Obama when it is about insuring the Constitution is followed. The only way someone could believe this is about taking the Presidency away from Obama is if they believe Obama is not a natural born citizen.
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    I fail to understand why so many people think this is about taking the Presidency away from Obama when it is about insuring the Constitution is followed. The only way someone could believe this is about taking the Presidency away from Obama is if they believe Obama is not a natural born citizen.
    Which is also the only scenario in which we wouldn't be following the Constitution, either. If Obama is a natural born citizen, he is eligible for the office of the Presidency. The only possible way he couldn't be is if he formally renounced his US citizenship. Thus far, I've seen no evidence indicating such. So, all this "controversy" is BS. This isn't about upholding the Constitution, because things were very plainly done in accordance with Constitutional law. This is about butthurt Republicans grasping at straws.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    edited December 2008
    This is about butthurt Republicans grasping at straws.
    I am not aware of Donofrio's political affiliation. Do you have proof he is a Republican?

    You do realize that the SoS of New Jersey did not investigate any of the candidates before their names were added to the ballot and one of them has since been proven to be ineligible.

    Let me ask this question: Are there any government officials, whose job it is to insure Presidential candidates are qualified under the rules of the US Constitution, come forward and said that they have investigated the recent slate of candidates and found them ineligible or eligible?
    Post edited by HMTKSteve on
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    You do realize that the SoS of New Jersey did not investigateanyof the candidates before their names were added to the ballot and one of them has since been proven to be ineligible.
    If a government official doesn't do his job, it's up to his superiors to rectify that situation. This isn't something for the Supreme Court to hear; this is something for a lower state court to deal with. Donofrio is ballooning this from a case of a government official fucking off into a (flimsy) debate about the Constitution.

    Did you read any of the links I posted above? According to US law, Obama is a "citizen at birth" of the United States. The law doesn't care one whit about multiple citizenships; as long as you meet the requirements to be a citizen at birth, you're a citizen at birth.

    So what's the issue again? All I can see is straw-grasping.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    Personally I would rather this issue be cleared up before he becomes President than after.
    There's no issue to be cleared up.
    I fail to understand . . .
    Exactly.
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    Another one bites the dust.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    edited December 2008
    Another one bites the dust.
    But state officials in Hawaii say they checked health department records and have determined there's no doubt Obama was born in Hawaii.
    Does anyone have a link to this? I have only read where the officials say they have the document but they have never said anything about the contents of the document. For them to say anything about what is on the document would be to violate Hawaii's privacy laws.

    Looks like WROTNOWSKI v. BYSIEWICZ is going to go before the court on Dec 9. This case was also worked on by Donofrio and new evidence has surfaced about the legitimacy of President Arthur that may be of interest.
    Post edited by HMTKSteve on
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    Does anyone have a link to this? I have only read where the officials say they have the document but they have never said anything about the contents of the document. For them to say anything about what is on the document would be to violate Hawaii's privacy laws.
    Happy to be of service.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    edited December 2008
    That release only says they have the document. No mention is made of the contents of the document. I'm looking for an article where an Hawaiian official says that he was 100% born in Hawaii because that is the interpretation I keep seeing in the media reports.
    Post edited by HMTKSteve on
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    edited December 2008
    That release only says they have the document. No mention is made of the contents of the document. I'm looking for an article where an Hawaiian official says that he was 100% born in Hawaii because that is the interpretation I keep seeing in the media reports.
    If the Hawaii DoH has Obama's birth certificate, it's because he was born in Hawaii. It's an interpretation, to be sure, but it's against the law for them to release the contents of the birth certificate. That press release is obviously the most they can say, but it's pretty clearly saying, "We have his birth certificate, and yes, he was born in Hawaii."

    Also, here's an article from a paper who sought clarification.

    EDIT: If that's still not enough, why not go straight to the source and contact the Hawaii DoH Communications Office?
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • JasonJason
    I hope you break your monitor trying to grasp at these.
    image
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    100% born in Hawaii
    As opposed to 43% percent born in Hawaii? Exactly what percentage of me has to be pushed out of a woman on American soil for me to be considered an American? What if I got a heart transplant in Moscow, does that then mean that only 96% of me is American?

    The fact that this is still being "contested" is pretty pathetic.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    I'm not grasping at straws. I'm simply pointing out that news reports have assumed something in their reports that was not stated.

    Also (I do not believe he was born outside of Hawaii) under existing law when Obama was born it was possible to register a birth in Hawaii even if the baby was not born in Hawaii as long as both parents had recently claimed residency there.

    My main problem here is that no one investigated any of the candidates prior to putting their names on the ballot!

    I also feel that the premise of Obama not being eligible because of his dual-citizenship at birth to be the least wonky of all the cases.
Sign In or Register to comment.