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"
I never said Donofrio said Obama was anti-colonialist. I was speaking in general political terms. Conservatives/Republicans can't simultaneously claim Obama is an anti-colonialist (Dinesh D'Souza, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, etc...) while also claiming he is a British subject with "dual allegiance".
Making the case that a President of the United States should be unencumbered by divided loyalties is relatively easy. But I'm saying that Obama has demonstrated, at a minimum, ambivalence, and at a maximum, open hostility towards the U.K. Therefore, politically, I don't see this notion gaining a lot of support outside the birther community.
I am much more concerned about him relinquishing sovereignty to the U.N. than to the Queen.
(Regarding the Gulf Deepwater Horizon spill, BP is heavily investing in alternative energy, so Obama considered them an oil company he could work with.)
You have an astoundingly short memory. McCain was out of the running at one point. Out of money and out of support when the media started talking about him all the time. it wasn’t all necessarily good, but it kept his name in the news enough to help, A LOT. press coverage, where they name you, is never bad. Even if what they are saying is. I totally remember thinking at the time..... How he hell is he DOING this? I was for damn sire not alone in that! It was discussed every day here! Because he should have been dead in the water. HE even admits it, and the campaign wondered it too! They just called him he comeback kid and didn’t look a gift horse in the mouth.
Whatever.
You have an opinion Rogers. I know you are wrong. So do a lot of others. Including Obama or the cretin would have opened his records.
He got through the process due to the IGNORANCE of the public, and because of people like YOU, who perpetrated a lie, and continue to push it, selling it wig all you got.
You ARE completely wrong with regard to the LEGAL meaning of natural born citizen, and it is funny and sad all qt the same time to see you trying so hard to avoid the truth. I enjoy watching you squirm and writhe as the truth is shoved in your face time and time again.
-sent from my iPhone
There had to be laws that were fitting to sovereign States as that IS where the sovereignty of the nation lies. In the States & the people of those States. The laws of the Federal govt needed to follow a universal/international law because they were dealing with sovereign nation States. If they hadn’t, the US Constitution would have never been ratified.
One only has to go back to the Declarations of Independence to find this out. It wasn’t one declaration that was made. Each State sent their own formal declaration of independence to England prior to the one signed by all the states & formalized on July 4, 1776. The 1776 declaration was the formal one that bound all 13 colonies together as a Federal Republic, standing beside each other to protect each others sovereignty. At that time, they were truly independent, sovereign nation States with completely independent governments. Each State was a sovereign Republic in its own right upon their individual declaration of independence from Great Britain. The US Constitution is basically a Treaty between the all the sovereign States and the citizens of those States. Natural law & the laws of nations are the laws that have been common to all nations & States since the dawn of time. It is why it is called the “Supreme Law of the Land”.
The July 4, 1776 Declaration of Independence was the 1st treaty between the States that “United” them, the Articles of Confederation the 2nd & the US Constitution was the 3rd. And that is why “Treaties” are “Supreme Law”.
The US Constitution is a “Treaty” between the States. And where citizenship is concerned, the ONLY universal element common to ALL Nations & States is “jus sanguinis” combined with “jus soli”.
Born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
In the eyes of our Lord God, it mattered not where one was birthed. But as Nations grew & governments were formed, civil/local laws applied and as Vattel put it:
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens…I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country…
the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say “of itself,” for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also
Now, I remind all that Vattel also reminded all that:
For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory
And here we find the key to McCain’s eligibility & the definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” which is found in the 14th amendment.
Allegiance to one & ONLY ONE according to Nature & Nature's God: “ When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them”
Exodus 20:3 (3rd Commandment) You shall have no other gods before (besides) me
Matthew 6:24 & Luke 16:13 No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other.
Great post!!
“So, given the fact that Dr. Fukino said the ‘Registrar’ was the custodian of Obama’s original birth certificate, on October 31, 2008, not the ‘State Registrar, I don’t believe that Dr. Onaka’s signature appears anywhere on Obama’s alleged COLB.”
§ 4. What are sovereign states.
Every nation that governs itself, under what form soever, without dependence on any foreign power, is a Sovereign State, Its rights are naturally the same as those of any other state. Such are the moral persons who live together in a natural society, subject to the law of nations. To give a nation a right to make an immediate figure in this grand society, it is sufficient that it be really sovereign and independent, that is, that it govern itself by its own authority and laws.
§ 5. States bound by unequal alliance.
We ought, therefore, to account as sovereign states those which have united themselves to another more powerful, by an unequal alliance, in which, as Aristotle says, to the more powerful is given more honour, and to the weaker, more assistance.
The conditions of those unequal alliances may be infinitely varied, But whatever they are, provided the inferior ally reserve to itself the sovereignty, or the right of governing its own body, it ought to be considered as an independent state, that keeps up an intercourse with others under the authority of the law of nations.
§ 6. Or by treaties of protection.
Consequently a weak state, which, in order to provide for its safety, places itself under the protection of a more powerful one, and engages, in return, to perform several offices equivalent to that protection, without however divesting itself of the right of government and sovereignty, — that state, I say, does not, on this account, cease to rank among the sovereigns who acknowledge no other law than that of nations.
§ 10. Of states forming a federal republic.
Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.
Such were formerly the cities of Greece; such are at present the Seven United Provinces of the Netherlands, (13) and such the members of the Helvetic body.[refer to Federalists #18-22]
Now the progressives would like to think of the states as the following:
§ 11. Of a state that has passed under the dominion of another.
But a people that has passed under the dominion of another is no longer a state, and can no longer avail itself directly of the law of nations. Such were the nations and kingdoms which the Romans rendered subject to their empire; the generality even of those whom they honoured with the name of friends and allies no longer formed real states. Within themselves they were governed by their own laws and magistrates; but without, they were in every thing obliged to follow the orders of Rome; they dared not of themselves either to make war or contract alliances; and could not treat with nations.
And as to Sec. 11, I say that this has never happened. No State has conceded its sovereignty and gone under the complete rule of another. The Federal government nor the District of Columbia is quote “a State”. D. C. is a separate territorial jurisdiction marked out for the sole purpose of conducting the business of the “several independent sovereign States” that consented to form a Federal Republic and thus the reason under the US Constitution that the District is not allowed representation in Congress. D.C. is NOT a sovereign State, it is merely a section of territory ceded by the State of Maryland that is wholly dependent on the “several independent sovereign States” for its entire existence and without the continued union of the sovereign States under the US Constitution, it ceases to exist.
I don’t engage in discussions with liars and frauds.
And, junior, you have demonstrated in these threads you are both.
Here is the detail of the Daily KOS image (supposedly a scan) and two of the Factcheck photos showing THEIR version of the supposedly same document - but not as a scan but as a 3D digital photograph of the supposedly same document.
To understand the relevance of this simple finding the following must be understood. Actual COLBs from Hawaii are printed in pristine laser print. Since they are 'Computer generated abstracts' they do not capture an original imaged document. And so they print like any laser printed document generated in MS Word or Excel. Even the border is generated by the laser printer at the time of rendering. So this means there are no stray dots printed, no residual image of an original old form. This is a clean precisely printed document. I must be if has any level of security. The 'border' is supposedly the security feature. It must be perfect when it is printed to retain the security function.
Now that we know that the document is precisely printed using ultra high quality laser printing we look at the Daily KOS image. It contains many marks all over the document are not from a print process, they are simple dark dots in some cases. They are larger more irregular marks in others. These obviously did not come from the print process. They came from an 'imaging' process. Likely a scan of an original document where the flatbed scanner had dirt and dust trapped in it or on the glass. Anyone who scans photos and tries to enlarge them finds this irritating problem. The important thing to remember is these marks in the Daily KOS very high resolution image were introduced via an imaging (likely scan) process and not a laser printer process.
So if you did scan an actual COLB on a flatbed scanner and lifted it up and maybe put it back into a folder or envelope any small dust or dirt from the glass would fall off. It would not become part of the document. It is a separate physical element. Only electrostatic bonding may hold it there...but not for long.
So now we look at the Factcheck photos. Some, if not all were taken at Obama's Chicago Headquarters. When you zoom in on some documents (birth_certificate_2.jpg, birth_certificate_5.jpg) you find some the same marks/dirt/dust as in the Daily KOS scan. I call them "birthmarks". But they are not dust or dirt clinging to the document via electrostatic bonding. They are printed into the document. I will say again, these marks are clearly PRINTED into the document. So going back to an important point - a cleanly printed COLB does not have these marks PRINTED into it. I will point out two easy to find marks below but there are at least 5 or 6 of these in the Factcheck/Obama Campaign photos that line up exactly and perfectly with the Daily KOS image. Some of the more obvious marks from the Daily KOS image do NOT appear in the documents in the Factcheck/Obama Campaign photos. These were 'cleaned up' apparently when they were noticable after printing the Daily KOS image or the common source image since there may be a yet unseen common source image. This further confirms manipulation of the image before it was printed for the Factcheck/Obama Campaign photoshoot. So this is why it is obvious that the image from Daily KOS (and its cousins at FTS and Politico) and the Factcheck/Obama Campaign photos are not authentic. The printed image on the paper in the photos came from the Daily KOS image or a common, yet unseen, image. But since the documents have PRINTED markings that came from an imaging process that also created the Daily KOS image and not from laser printer in the Health Department in Hawaii the lack of authenticity is confirmed.
None of this is technically hard. It just takes an understanding that the images from the two sources are related and there are markings in both whose source is not the HDOH laser printer.
I don’t engage in discussions with liars and frauds.
And, junior, you have demonstrated in these threads you are both.
“I don’t engage in discussions with liars and frauds.
And, junior, you have demonstrated in these threads you are both.”
Kudos, Beckwith; that’s the way it’s got to be done. Freepers have been more than patient with this SP, and he has repaid us by becoming increasingly annoying and disruptive. He adds nothing to the discussion. While conservatives are doing their dead level best to get to the bottom of the monumental fraud of Obama, the SP works overtime to distract, irk, and attempt in a viely dishonest, mindlessly repetitious way to defend the indefensible.
There is an exact equivalent. It’s that a slew of people have been invited to a party at a private home. It’s political in nature, but the partiers are on the same page so everybody’s having a great time. A person of an antithetical political orientation crashes the gate, barges into the gathering and ticks everybody he talks to off. People ask him to leave, but he refuses. He’s working at cross purposes to the host’s goal in organizing the party—but that is just the point from the SP’s perspective. He’s got an agenda, and he’ll see it through no matter how obnoxious he has to be in the process.
The only way to deal with him is to freeze him out. Maybe he’ll finally get the message and hit the road. That’s the hope, anyway.
Thank you, thank you, bc. I have heard the discussion, but there’s nothing like seeing it in crystal clarity. WOW—what a lowdown, conniving, fraudulent, vile and disgusting bunch Obama and his band of lying liars are. History will not be kind to this fraud’s enablers.
“So, given the fact that Dr. Fukino said the ‘Registrar’ was the custodian of Obama’s original birth certificate, on October 31, 2008, not the ‘State Registrar, I don’t believe that Dr. Onaka’s signature appears anywhere on Obama’s alleged COLB.”
Dr. Onaka is still in the same job. He can be asked at any time if the stamp of his signature is on Obama’s COLB.
From the St. Petersberg Times: “The Hawaii Department of Health receives about a dozen e-mail inquiries a day about Obama’s birth certificate, spokesman Okubo said.
“I guess the big issue that’s being raised is the lack of an embossed seal and a signature,” Okubo said, pointing out that in Hawaii, both those things are on the back of the document. “Because they scanned the front … you wouldn’t see those things.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
It is the same attitude of “it depends on what the meaning of is is”. Parsing words and not being forthright is what these libs are all about.
They are nothing but deceivers and liars, and the obots still don’t have any clue that they have been so easily duped by the snake oil salesman.
They are afraid of Chris Mathews calling them a racist.
The treaty referred to is specific as to persons ‘owning land’. How does this apply to Obama and his father? Is there a stretch of application if Obama’s father owned land under British rule?
The treaty referred to is specific as to persons ‘owning land’. How does this apply to Obama and his father? Is there a stretch of application if Obama’s father owned land under British rule?
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.
