tazzygirl
Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: truckinslave
"Donofrio v. Wells. He went after a Secretary of State of NJ as part of his suit. If Senators arent required, why in the hell did he expect her to be? "
I don't follow the above.
Donofrio, as I remember, sued Wells to force her to keep McCain and 0bama0 off the Presidential ballot.
Nowhwere mentioned were the qualifications of Wells to be SecState NJ, or McCain to be a Senator from Az.
Or the qualifications of 0bama0 to hold office in Kenya. That was not part of the suit. 
You are correct, I misread the case intro. What happened was Donofrio claimed three Presidential candidates were ineligible to hold that office...
In October 2008, Leo Donofrio, an attorney from New Jersey, filed suit to challenge the eligibility of Obama, Republican presidential candidate John McCain (see details here) and the Socialist Workers Party candidate Roger Calero.[8] Donofrio asserted that all three candidates were ineligible: Obama due to having dual U.S. and British nationality at birth (the latter via Obama's father), McCain due to being born in the Panama Canal Zone, and Calero due to allegedly still having Nicaraguan citizenship.[57]
Donofrio was not among those who claimed Obama might have been born outside Hawaii.[155] Also, Donofrio did not challenge the fact that Obama is a U.S. citizen and instead challenged only whether Obama is a natural-born citizen.[156]
The case was referred to the Supreme Court by Justice Clarence Thomas. When the case reached the United States Supreme Court on December 8, 2008, the Court declined without comment to hear the case.[57]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donofrio_v._Wells#Donofrio_v._Wells
Wongs case made a point that while he was a citizen, he wasnt a naturally born citizen.
In a 6–2 decision, the Supreme Court held that Wong Kim Ark had indeed acquired U.S. citizenship at birth and that "the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth."[14]
The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, according to the court's majority, had to be interpreted in light of English common law,[15] which had included all native-born children except for those who were: (1) born to foreign rulers or diplomats, (2) born on foreign public ships, or (3) born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.[16][17] The majority held that the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase in the 14th Amendment specifically incorporated these exceptions (plus a fourth — namely, that Indian tribes "not taxed" were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction[18][19])—and that since none of these exceptions applied to Wong's situation, Wong was a U.S. citizen, regardless of the fact that his parents were not U.S. citizens (and were, in fact, ineligible ever to become U.S. citizens because of the Chinese Exclusion Act). The opinion emphasized the fact that "during all the time of their said residence in the United States, as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China".[20]
Since Wong was a U.S. citizen from birth, the restrictions of the Chinese Exclusion Act did not apply to him. An act of Congress, the majority held, does not trump the Constitution; such a law "cannot control [the Constitution's] meaning, or impair its effect, but must be construed and executed in subordination to its provisions."[3][21]
And the fear, along with the disenting decision...
In the view of the minority, excessive reliance on jus soli (birthplace) as the principal determiner of citizenship would lead to an untenable state of affairs in which "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not".[26]
Sort of makes Donofrio's whole argument confusing.
_____________________________
Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.
|
RE: I predicted this. - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread