PoliBlog: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » Shocker! SCOTUS does not Hear Obama Citizenship Case

Via the AP: Court: No review of Obama’s eligibility to serve

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.

Well. What good is the Court if it can’t deal with such pressing issues? Now Obama is going to give the country away to Kenya (or Britain, or something…)!

Personally, I think that “natural born” means that one’s mother had to have birthed you via natural childbirth techniques. As such, all children whose mother’s used anesthesia are hereby disqualified as “natural born citizens”.

(Hey, it makes as much sense as any of the other theories being bandied about on this subject).

Share on Facebook

Sphere: Related Content

Filed under: Courts/the Judiciary, US Politics | |

The views expressed in the comments are the sole responsibility of the person leaving those comments. They do not reflect the opinion of the author of PoliBlog, nor have they been vetted by the author.

8 Responses to “Shocker! SCOTUS does not Hear Obama Citizenship Case”

James Joyner Says:
December 8th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
It would certainly seem to rule out C-section delivery. I’d be mighty skeptical of chemically induced delivery as well. As a strict constructionist, I think any use of medical technology not available in 1789 should be avoided.
Dr. Steven Taylor Says:
December 8th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
A valid addition to the theory.
Talmadge East Says:
December 8th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Hey, I’m cool with that. Just makes it a lot easier for me to make it. Oh yeah, completely natural, 1789 style.
The Obligatory SCOTUS Rejects Obama Birth Certificate Challenge | Political Byline Says:
December 8th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
[...] Stop The ACLU, Outside The Beltway, Political Machine, Ballot Access News, Brendan Nyhan and PoliBlog (TM) (Via [...]
B. Minich Says:
December 8th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Does this mean that the Presidency should be limited to those born at home utilizing a mid-wife?
The Supreme Court Of The U.S. Lets We, The People Down Again: Refuses To Review “Natural Born Citizenship Status” Of Barack Obama And John McCain | THE GUN TOTING LIBERAL™ Says:
December 8th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
[...] fellow Alabama blogger, Doctor Steven Taylor of PoliBlog (Classical Left), a Constitutional expert, says the “Natural Born Citizen” clause was meant to proclude those children whom were bo…; James Joiner of Outside The Beltway (Centrist/Moderate) actually has the AUDACITY to claim Hawaii [...]
Captain D Says:
December 8th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
The Naturalization Act of 1795 really should have rendered this whole case moot in the first place.

Still, I think it would be worth updated the thing to specify in no uncertain terms whether one or both parents have to be citizens for a person born outside of US territory to be considered a natural born citizen; as it reads right now, I could go either way, and while the body of precedents is huge, it wouldn’t hurt to formalize it and put it in writing so as to prevent these kinds of things coming up in the future.
mbailey Says:
December 9th, 2008 at 11:23 am
once again, you offend me.

		Information academic site e-mail c.v. columns legal rss .92 2.0
ARCHIVES February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003	Monday, December 8, 2008 Shocker! SCOTUS does not Hear Obama Citizenship Case By Steven L. Taylor Via the AP: Court: No review of Obama’s eligibility to serve 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. Well. What good is the Court if it can’t deal with such pressing issues? Now Obama is going to give the country away to Kenya (or Britain, or something…)! Personally, I think that “natural born” means that one’s mother had to have birthed you via natural childbirth techniques. As such, all children whose mother’s used anesthesia are hereby disqualified as “natural born citizens”. (Hey, it makes as much sense as any of the other theories being bandied about on this subject). Share on Facebook Sphere: Related Content Filed under: Courts/the Judiciary, US Politics \| \| The views expressed in the comments are the sole responsibility of the person leaving those comments. They do not reflect the opinion of the author of PoliBlog, nor have they been vetted by the author. 8 Responses to “Shocker! SCOTUS does not Hear Obama Citizenship Case” James Joyner Says: December 8th, 2008 at 2:11 pm It would certainly seem to rule out C-section delivery. I’d be mighty skeptical of chemically induced delivery as well. As a strict constructionist, I think any use of medical technology not available in 1789 should be avoided. Dr. Steven Taylor Says: December 8th, 2008 at 2:18 pm A valid addition to the theory. Talmadge East Says: December 8th, 2008 at 3:13 pm Hey, I’m cool with that. Just makes it a lot easier for me to make it. Oh yeah, completely natural, 1789 style. The Obligatory SCOTUS Rejects Obama Birth Certificate Challenge \| Political Byline Says: December 8th, 2008 at 3:46 pm [...] Stop The ACLU, Outside The Beltway, Political Machine, Ballot Access News, Brendan Nyhan and PoliBlog (TM) (Via [...] B. Minich Says: December 8th, 2008 at 3:54 pm Does this mean that the Presidency should be limited to those born at home utilizing a mid-wife? The Supreme Court Of The U.S. Lets We, The People Down Again: Refuses To Review “Natural Born Citizenship Status” Of Barack Obama And John McCain \| THE GUN TOTING LIBERAL™ Says: December 8th, 2008 at 9:25 pm [...] fellow Alabama blogger, Doctor Steven Taylor of PoliBlog (Classical Left), a Constitutional expert, says the “Natural Born Citizen” clause was meant to proclude those children whom were bo…; James Joiner of Outside The Beltway (Centrist/Moderate) actually has the AUDACITY to claim Hawaii [...] Captain D Says: December 8th, 2008 at 9:29 pm The Naturalization Act of 1795 really should have rendered this whole case moot in the first place. Still, I think it would be worth updated the thing to specify in no uncertain terms whether one or both parents have to be citizens for a person born outside of US territory to be considered a natural born citizen; as it reads right now, I could go either way, and while the body of precedents is huge, it wouldn’t hurt to formalize it and put it in writing so as to prevent these kinds of things coming up in the future. mbailey Says: December 9th, 2008 at 11:23 am once again, you offend me.	blog advertising is good for you Sterling Jewelry Time Clocks Food Equipment Office Machines Cash Registers Ricoh Fax Machines IBM Typewriters Copy Machines Office Supplies Office Equipment Blogroll --- Advertisement Advertisement