Obama’s Citizenship: Lawsuits Continue
Posted on December 9, 2008
Cross-posted by Maggie at Maggie’s Notebook
This video explains the role of a Constitutional Republic. If you believe that Barack Obama was “elected by the people” and as such our Constitution is not relevant in the 2008 Presidential election, think about it again. America is not a Democracy.
Scroll down for commentary on today’s Supreme Court refusal to hear Leo Donofrio’s and information on the latest citizenship lawsuit to be considered for review by Justice Scalia. View video at YouTube.com
On December 8th, the Supreme Court refused to hear Leo Donofrio’s claim that Barack Obama was born a British citizen, and as such, is not constitutionally eligible to be the President of the United States. The case was dismissed without comment from the Justices – so once again, there is no hint of Obama’s legitimacy or the lack of it.
The latest information in this saga came just after 7 pm on December 8th, from Leo Donofrio’s website, NaturalBornCitizen.com.
Donofrio has participated in the preparation of another lawsuit known as Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz. The Supreme Court Docket No. is 08A469:
From the Press Release: December 8, 2008 7:20 p.m.
Cort Wrotnowski’s emergency application for a stay and/or injunction as to the Electoral College meeting on Dec. 15 was today referred to the full Court by the Honorable Associate Justice Anotonin Scalia. It has been distributed for Conference of Friday December 12. The official case name is WROTNOWSKI v. BYSIEWICZ, United States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A469.
The Wrotnowski Supreme Court application was prepared by Leo Donofrio, Esq. and is centered on the same issue from Donofrio’s case which was discussed by the Supreme Court in its conference of December 5 – whether Barack Obama is not eligible to the office of President due to the fact that he was a British citizen at the time of his birth.
Tomorrow, Dec. 9 – Cort Wrotnowski will submit a supplemental brief concerning the newly discovered ineligibility of twenty-first President Chester Arthur due to his having been born as a British subject. This is relevant to the case at hand in that Justice Gray – who wrote the seminal opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Arc – was appointed by Chester Arthur.
There is extensive information at the above link.
Another excellent place to keep on top of any and all lawsuits filed in the endeavor to make Obama prove that he is natural born, is America’s Right. The blog owner, Jeff Schrieber, lives and works in Philadelphia and is a “Legal writer by day, exhausted law student by night… He broke the story of the first failed Philip Berg lawsuit.
For those advising that I just take a look at the Obama birth certificate on fightthesmears.com, I ask how you give validity to a birth certificate which documents no hospital where the birth took place, and is not signed by a doctor?
I do not know whether or not Barack Obama is a natural born citizen, and neither do you. I do know that if our President-elect had any respect for our Constitution, his proof of natural born status would have been provided immediately – and that proof would have included a delivering physician and a hospital name. Will we ever learn the truth, it’s doubtful. Doesn’t that make everyone feel comfortable and secure about our Constitutional Republic?
Related discourse on Constitutional Republics and Democracies:
United States Was Founded as a Constitutional Republic and Not a Democracy
Contrary to popular rhetoric, America was founded, not as a “democracy,” but as a constitutional republic–a political structure under which the government is bound by a written constitution to the task of protecting individual rights. “Democracy” does not mean a system that holds public elections for government officials; it means a system in which a majority vote rules everything and everyone, and in which the individual thus has no rights. In a democracy, observed James Madison in The Federalist Papers , “there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention [and] have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.”
Ron Paul: Constitutional Republic vs Democracy
Unlike a pure democracy, in a constitutional republic, citizens are not governed by the majority of the people but by the rule of law. Constitutional Republics are a deliberate attempt to hold in check the threat of mobocracy thereby protecting dissenting individuals from the tyranny of the majority by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population. The power of the majority of the people is checked by limiting that power to electing representatives who govern within limits of overarching constitutional law rather than the popular vote having legislative power itself. John Adams defined a constitutional republic as “a government of laws, and not of men.”Also, the power of government officials is checked by allowing no single individual to hold executive, legislative and judicial powers. Instead these powers are separated into distinct branches that serve as a check and balance on each other. A constitutional republic is designed so that “no person or group [can] rise to absolute power.”
The original framers of the United States Constitution were notably cognizant of what they perceived as a danger of majority rule in oppressing freedom and liberty of the individual. For example, James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, advocates a constitutional republic over a democracy to protect the individual from the majority. The framers carefully created the institutions within the Constitution and the United States Bill of Rights. They kept what they believed were the best elements of majority rule. But they were mitigated by a constitution with protections for individual liberty, a separation of powers.
» Filed Under Activist Judges, Barack Obama, Constitution, Democrats, Fraud/misrepresentation, Illegal Activities, Liberal Media/Bias, Obama Birth Certificate, Representative Government, The United States of America, U.S. Constitution, liberalism
Trackback URL
Comments
6 Responses to “Obama’s Citizenship: Lawsuits Continue”
Leave a Reply
from itooktheredpill.wordpress.com:
The truth is that the Supreme Court did NOT “deny cert” to Leo Donofrio yesterday. The truth is the Supreme Court did NOT “turn down” Donofrio’s case yesterday. The truth is that Leo Donofrio’s case is still “PENDING” at the Supreme Court, and the court only denied the application to stay an election.
I believe the election that Donofrio had been trying to stay was the November 4th election (he hurriedly filed his case on November 3rd to do so).
So, it is logical that the court would, on December 8th, deny an application to stay an election that already happened on November 4th.
Donofrio’s case is still PENDING.
MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2008
ORDERS IN PENDING CASES
08A407 DONOFRIO, LEO C. V. WELLS, NJ SEC. OF STATE
The application for stay addressed to Justice Thomas and referred to the Court is denied.
…
CERTIORARI DENIED
[Note the ABSENCE of Donofrio's case here]
Donofrio’s case is NOT listed under CERTIORARI DENIED.
Everyone should take another look at the order list from the SCOTUS yesterday.
Not only was Donofrio’s case NOT denied certiorari, but a third case (Cort Wrotnowski vs. Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State) was referred to the Court by Justice Scalia – distributed for conference this coming Friday:
Dec 8 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 12, 2008.
Dec 8 2008 Application (08A469) referred to the Court by Justice Scalia.
It sounds like Donofrio may have called this correctly earlier today:
On the chance that SCOTUS was looking at both my case and Cort’s case, I must stress that Cort’s case does not have the same procedural hang up that mine does. It may be that without a decision on the Judicial misconduct allegation correcting the NJ Appellate Division case file, SCOTUS might have been in the position of not being able to hear my case as it would appear that my case was not before them on the proper procedural grounds.
I did file a direct appeal under the proper NJ Court rules, but the lower Court judge refused to acknowledge that and if his fraudulent docketing was used by SCOTUS they would have a solid procedural basis to throw mine out.
Friday could turn out to be a very, very big news day.
Um, because it’s an official state document that has been authenticated by the state of Hawaii, who has no reason to lie and every reason not to lie? And also because you have no hard evidence that suggests otherwise?
Donofrio should have his license to practice law revoked for furthering such frivolous claims, especially when it’s not his own case.
“Donofrio should have his license to practice law revoked for furthering such frivolous claims, especially when it’s not his own case.”
You are saying he should be blacklisted from his profession because he disputes THE ONE? Wow, how National Socialist can you Socialists get? Sew on Stars, much?
No, you idiot. I’m saying that he should not be allowed to file frivolous lawsuits that waste taxpayer money and judicial resources. I’d be less concerned if he was doing it pro se, but the fact that he’s helping someone else litigate this nonsense in front of the High Court is not only wasteful, but also a blemish upon the New Jersey Bar and lawyers in general. As an officer of the Court, he should know better. I hope he gets sanctioned appropriately.
“I’m saying that he should not be allowed to file frivolous lawsuits that waste taxpayer money and judicial resources.”
You mean like the tort reform that the trial bar and the Democrat party have been fighting against tooth and nail for decades?
In my lifetime, I’ve discovered that when someone fights so hard to hide something, it usually means they indeed have something to hide. I’m not sure how anyone can run for President and be afraid to release the long-form vault copy of their birth certificate. Also, people need to think long and hard as to how John McCain went from last in the pack to first in the pack and got the Republican nomination. Could it be the Democrats needed someone as opposition that could NOT raise the eligibility issue against Obama? Think about it.