Skip to content

Leo Donofrio: “SCOTUS = WUSSY”

Leo Donofrio, Plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells, posted his thoughts today on specific cases presented in Cort Wrotnowski’s case, Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz and how Leo feels that the Supreme Court completely fumbled in their responsibilities to uphold the Constitution (full comment is below).

While I very much appreciate Leo spearheading most of the efforts of getting at least 2 cases before the Supreme Court in Conference, I’m going to have to agree to disagree with him on the conclusion he draws from the Justices denying a hearing on either case.

Specifically, I think it’s safe to say that since it’s not unconstitutional for the Electoral College to vote on its federally-prescribed date (and there’s nothing wrong, per se, with the Electoral College actually voting for someone who is not eligible to be President), the Supreme Court was certainly not going to “stay” it from happening. After all, the Electoral College is an aspect of the Legislative branch and is supposed to be voting on the President.

Not only this, but we have to remember that the Electoral College’s vote means nothing until such time as Congress convenes to (1) count the votes and (2) certify that those votes are legitimate; and there’s the rub. At this point in the electoral process, Congress is the last firewall, if you will, of ensuring that the entire electoral process, to date, has been executed (1) fairly and (2) legitimately. This means it is Congress’ responsibility to ensure that the US Constitution is followed with respect to the President-elect.

So, did the Supreme Court appropriately deny stays of the Electoral College, likely because the Legislative branch hasn’t yet exhausted all of its duties? I say yes. However, could a case be made that, should Congress certify an ineligible President-elect as President, the Supreme Court ought to be called in to hold Congress accountable? Absolutely!

And, for me, that’s the likely path I see at this time.

-Phil

SCOTUS IN “WONG KIM ARK” AND “MINOR V. HAPPERSETT” RIGHTFULLY PUNTED ON “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” – CURRENT COURT PURPOSELY FUMBLED

scotuswuss1

They fumbled on purpose because they were afraid to run with the ball and get hit.

I get more questions about United States v. Wong Kim Ark than any other case.  Recently, Steve Marquis wrote to me and asked for a clarification about this.  Steve is the person who first sued the Washington Secretary of State back in October.  I was inspired by Steve’s action to file my own suit.

I now find this all irrelevant since if the court was ever going to uphold the Constitution, it would have done so by now on this issue.  As I’ve stated in comments to my last blog (which was satire people), you have no Constitution and you have no “Supreme” court.  You have a filthy corrupted snake pit which tried to protect itself from responsibility for this issue by using clerks like brutal praetorian guards.

But, out of respect for Steve’s effort and the overall confusion this case has caused on the natural born citizen issue, I’ve written the following explanation thereto in the hope that the current court will receive no historical cover from Wong Kim Ark as none is due.

In Wong Kim Ark, the court thoroughly discussed “natural born citizen”.  And in doing so, Justice Gray quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett.  The following passage is a quote from Minor as quoted by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark:

” ‘At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”

(Emphasis added.)

Look at that, you have Justice Gray citing the court in Minor who are themselves citing the “Laws of Nations” definition (they didn’t directly cite that treatise but the definition used is taken therefrom) of  natural born citizen = person born in US to “citizen parents” = nbc .

In Minor, they clearly established who was a “natural born citizen” beyond any doubt, a definition that does not include Obama.  As to persons born in the US to foreign parents they said, as directly quoted in Wong Kim Ark by Justice Gray, As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

For the purposes of Minor and Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court didn’t need to reach the “natural born citizen” issue as neither person was running for President, so they rightfully punted by limiting their holdings to the issue of  whether each person was a “citizen”.

But they discussed the “natural born citizen” issue thoroughly.  Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark quoted this EXACT passage from Minor.  And in doing so, Justice Gray and the court punted on whether Wong Kim Arkwas a “natural born citizen” specifically limiting their holding to state that the person was a “citizen”.

There’s a clear distinction being made by both the Minor court and theWong Kim Ark court between “natural born citizens” and “citizens”.  And both holdings were willing to say that the person was a “Citizen” but no more than that.  They carefully evaded the issue of whether a person born in the US to parents who weren’t citizens was a “natural born citizen”.

Justice Gray covered all of this ground in Wong Kim Ark thoroughly, but at the end of the decision he refused to state that a person born in the US to foreign parents was a “natural born citizen”.  In Wong Kim Ark, the court’s holding avoided the natural born citizen issue by steering widely clear of it in the conclusion.  Won Kim Ark wasn’t running for President, so they punted as follows:

“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative. ” (Emphasis added.)

They held that Wong Kim Ark was a “citizen” but they did not hold that he was a “natural born citizen”.  And Justice Gray thoroughly discussed the definition of “natural born citizen” in his review of the Minor case wherein the Supreme Court in Minor adopted the Laws of Nationsdefinition of “natural born citizen” as being the only definition which is free of doubt.

I have stated over and again that the Wong Kim Ark decision supports the argument that Obama is not a natural born citizen in that the court clearly had the chance in the Wong Kim Ark opinion to define “natural born citizen” as being inclusive of persons born in the United States to foreign parents… but they didn’t.

And so, as is so very clearly established by the supreme court in Minorand Wong Kim Ark, there are now, and have always been, doubts about whether people born in the US to foreign parents are “natural born citizens”.

Those doubts needed to be discussed and adjudicated by the current supreme court.  But they didn’t have the right stuff to take the issue on.  And that makes them neither supreme nor even willing to live up to their oath of office to uphold the Constitution.

Shame on them.  Shame on this court who lacked the courage to do their job by taking on this tough issue and and having it out in open court.  Not one of them had the decency to at least issue an opinion to the nation as to why the applications were denied.

Instead of respecting the citizens who took time, money and risk to bring these actions, those citizens were subjected to the most bizarre clerical behavior this lawyer of seventeen years has ever seen or could ever imagine.

This current supreme court is a blasphemy to justice.  They have no honor.  They disgust me in every fiber of my being, a sick joke to a sick country in their silly robes and ruffles.

Word up.  And that word is stamped on their foreheads forever (see image above).

22 Comments


  1. Fatal error: Uncaught Error: Call to undefined function ereg() in /srv/users/serverpilot/apps/the-right-side-of-life/public/wp-content/themes/veryplaintxt/functions.php:183 Stack trace: #0 /srv/users/serverpilot/apps/the-right-side-of-life/public/wp-content/themes/veryplaintxt/comments.php(33): veryplaintxt_commenter_link() #1 /srv/users/serverpilot/apps/the-right-side-of-life/public/wp-includes/comment-template.php(1469): require('/srv/users/serv...') #2 /srv/users/serverpilot/apps/the-right-side-of-life/public/wp-content/themes/veryplaintxt/single.php(42): comments_template() #3 /srv/users/serverpilot/apps/the-right-side-of-life/public/wp-includes/template-loader.php(74): include('/srv/users/serv...') #4 /srv/users/serverpilot/apps/the-right-side-of-life/public/wp-blog-header.php(19): require_once('/srv/users/serv...') #5 /srv/users/serverpilot/apps/the-right-side-of-life/public/index.php(17): require('/srv/users/serv...') #6 {main} thrown in /srv/users/serverpilot/apps/the-right-side-of-life/public/wp-content/themes/veryplaintxt/functions.php on line 183