Posted on 03/02/2011 10:15:41 AM PST by rxsid
"The Jay Treaty Strongly Indicates That Obama Is Not Eligible To Be President.
Those who support Obama’s eligibility – despite his admission of dual allegiance/nationality (at the time of his birth) – routinely offer a rather absurd hypothetical which sounds something like this:
“The US is sovereign and not governed by foreign law so British law shouldn’t be considered as to Presidential eligibility. What if North Korea declared that all US citizens are also citizens of North Korea? In that case, nobody would be eligible to be President if dual nationality was a determining factor. Therefore, nationality laws of the United Kingdom are irrelevant.”
Since the US recognizes both Jus Soli (citizenship born of the soil) and Jus Sanguinis (citizenship born of the blood) as to its own citizens, it has also recognized the same claims to citizenship from other nations. It is well established – by a multitude of case law and the State Department’s own foreign affairs manual [a PDF] – that the US government must respect foreign law with regard to dual nationals.
But those who support Obama’s eligibility fail to acknowledge that the far-fetched North Korea hypo has no relevance as to Obama. For we are concerned with the United Kingdom’s nationality laws. And with regard to relations between the United Kingdom and the United States there are numerous treaties which require the United States to respect British law and to recognize the status of “British subject”.
The simple concept I reference is taken directly from Article Six of the US Constitution:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
Treaties are United States law. In fact, according to the Constitution, treaties are “the supreme law of the land”.
The State Department maintains a list [a PDF] of all treaties which are in effect. Articles IX and X of the “Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation (Jay Treaty)” are still in effect between the US and United Kingdom. (See pg. 281 of the list which is 291 for PDF pg. counter). That page also refers one to, Akins v. United States, 551 F. 2d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 1977), which states:
“The Supreme Court decided in Karnuth that the free-passage “privilege” of Article III was wholly promissory and prospective, rather than vested, in nature.The Court stated in comparing Articles IX and III of the Jay Treaty:
‘Article IX and Article III relate to fundamentally different things. Article IX aims at perpetuity and deals with existing rights, vested and permanent in character…’”
So it is Article IX of the Jay Treaty to which we must now turn our attention:
“It is agreed that British subjects who now hold lands in the territories of the United States, and American citizens who now hold lands in the dominions of His Majesty, shall continue to hold them according to the nature and tenure of their respective estates and titles therein; and may grant, sell or devise the same to whom they please, in like manner as if they were natives and that neither they nor their heirs or assigns shall, so far as may respect the said lands and the legal remedies incident thereto, be regarded as aliens.”
In order to respect Article IX of the Jay Treaty (and other treaties between the US and the United Kingdom), the United States is required – by the supreme law of the land – to respect the status of “British subjects”. In order to respect the legal rights of British subjects, the US must be able to identify them. The only way the US can identify British subjects is by recognizing and giving authority to British nationality law.
Therefore, regardless of any far-fetched hypos concerning North Korea, or any other country for that matter, the US and the United Kingdom are required by the Jay Treaty to consult the nationality laws of each sovereign state. The Jay Treaty is both US law and British law.
By authority of the US Constitution, the Jay Treaty requires the US to recognize British subjects and to protect these rights. To properly do so, the US must rely on British law in order to recognize British subjects.
So, with respect to Great Britain, the Jay Treaty denies Obama supporters the ability to rely on their favored argument.
BRITISH SUBJECTS ARE NOT TO BE RECOGNIZED AS US NATIVES ACCORDING TO THE JAY TREATY.
And herein lies the proverbial “smoking gun” with regard to Obama’s ineligibility to be President. Pay special attention to the following text taken from Article IX, “…and may grant, sell or devise the same to whom they please, in like manner as if they were natives…”
The statement – “as if they were natives” – strongly indicates that, by this treaty, both countries agreed that British subjects were not “natives” of the US and could not be considered “natives” of the US. Article IX simply carves out an exception to this rule which allows British subjects to be considered “as if” they were natives of the US. There were numerous policies in play at the time this treaty was signed which could have influenced this choice of words. (But more on that in the forthcoming part 2 of this report.)
The plain meaning of these words bears testament to the fact that, by this treaty, the United States acknowledges that no British subject may be considered a “native” of the United States. The treaty also establishes that no US citizen may be considered a “native” of the United Kingdom.
As most of you are well aware, John Jay’s letter to George Washington was responsible for introducing the “natural born Citizen” clause into the US Constitution.
Furthermore, at the time the Jay Treaty was signed, the UK recognized “perpetual allegiance” which meant that no British subject could throw off their required allegiance to the King. Indeed, the theory of “perpetual allegiance” was one of the main causes of the War of 1812. So, just who was and who was not a “native” of the United Kingdom and the United States was an important designation which had grave national security implications.
The Jay Treaty sought to grant the highest form of citizenship rights to those British subjects and US citizens affected by Article IX. Both countries agreed upon the one word they knew would – according to the law of nations – serve the purpose. That word was “natives”. Both states could have agreed that “British subjects” were to receive the same rights as “US citizens” and vice versa, but they didn’t.
They specifically chose the word “natives” because that word had a definitive meaning in the law of nations.
In 1984, the US Supreme Court – in TWA v. Franklin Mint Corp. – stated:
“The great object of an international agreement is to define the common ground between sovereign nations. Given the gulfs of language, culture, and values that separate nations, it is essential in international agreements for the parties to make explicit their common ground on the most rudimentary of matters. The frame of reference in interpreting treaties is naturally international, and not domestic. Accordingly, the language of the law of nations is always to be consulted in the interpretation of treaties.”
The law of nations is “always” to be consulted in the interpretation of treaties. You all know where this is going now, right?
Consider this to be just the introduction. In part 2 of this report, I will go into much greater detail.
Leo Donofrio, Esq.
Pidgeon & Donofrio GP"
"The Jay Treaty Strongly Indicates That Obama Is Not Eligible To Be President."
So why the Hell are the Republicans not raising hell about it?
sfl
So what? The Gay Treaty indicates the opposite!
Stop besmirching 0h0m0llah and don't ask me for links because the documentation isn't published yet. The paperwork is shoved and sealed in the new WH social director's ass and locked up by Reggie's dead bolt!
Well, because many of them, as with most people, are status-quo types, and as such, are part of the problem.
If there is time.
“My people say your Constitution, future elections, and America are now dead ---
like your rights, freedoms and grandchildren’s equities, you stupid, powerless crackers.”
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.
We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream.
It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same,
or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children
and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."
President Ronald Reagan
BRITISH SUBJECTS ARE NOT TO BE RECOGNIZED AS US
NATIVES ACCORDING TO THE JAY TREATY.
And herein lies the proverbial “smoking gun” with regard
to Obama’s ineligibility to be President.
Pay special attention to the following text taken from
Article IX, “…and may grant, sell or devise the same to
whom they please, in like manner as if they were natives…”
The statement – “as if they were natives” – strongly
indicates that, by this treaty, both countries agreed
that British subjects were not “natives” of the US and
could not be considered “natives” of the US.
Article IX simply carves out an exception to this rule
which allows British subjects to be considered “as if”
they were natives of the US.
There were numerous policies in play at the time this
treaty was signed which could have influenced this
choice of words. (But more on that in the forthcoming
part 2 of this report.)
Go, Leo! Lord guide, protect and strengthen a brave soul
to the effective methods, perseverence and resources to
successfuly take this issue finally to SCOTUS for
irrevocable and definitive Constitutional clarity.
but it doesn’t matter because the only evidence that any judge needs is the press release of Fukino! ;-)
Does anybody know what’s happening with Leo - if he’s at a point in the litigation he’s involved in where he can (and intends to) confront the eligibility issue on a legal level?
It would be a great time for it, with the state eligibility bills coming up.
Amen! Hallelujah!
Tomorrow, BTW, is the recalled conference on Hemenway's motions. Major event.
Yeah...everyone knows Obama is a loyal subject of the Queen!
Because the majority of them, aside from the freshman, where complicit in the "certification" of Barry during the 111th Congress!
Think they want to open an investigation into how THEY certified someone born owing allegiance to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England? They would essentially be investigating themselves as well. Not going to happen.
I recently sent a written letter to my "representative." Wanting to keep the letter very short and to the point, the body of the letter consisted of just 1 sentence.
Can someone who is a born British subject be considered a "natural born Citizen" of the United States?
I didn't mention Barry's name, or the issue with his birth certificate.
The reply I got back, no joke....was (I paraphrase)...Obama has shown his Hawaiian birth certificate, we should all respect the political process even though we may not agree with his politics.
I was shocked at the ridiculous response...then quickly realized that I shouldn't be.
At that point, it become obvious to me that those from the 111th Congress that are still there...are NOT going to do a damn thing about this.
He may, or may not be "loyal"...but assuming Sr. was his legal father at birth, he was obviously born a subject of the Queen. By birthright.
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html
Factcheck.org goes on to say this about Obama Sr., Jr. and the British Nationality Act of 1948:
In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii)* and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html
No idea.
Because you silly silly Republicans don’t do that! they allow the Democrats to dictate and manipulate the Conversation—and when the “useful idiots violate the law-and REASON as has happened in Wis. Then Republicans still don’t do anything they are the real life version of Veggie Tales Pirates that don’t do anything —only they are called politicians.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.