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"
Omc—I already knew all about Morphy. (I thought he went nuts later in his shortish life?) Probably the greatest chess genius of all time, while he lasted. Quite the prodigy, wasn’t he? The Mozart of chess.
I used to be a respectable chess player myself. Then I realized it was chess or writing, since time is limited, and I went with the latter.
I don’t think the “players” are fooled, I agree with you, Fantasywriter. They either know he’s lying and is ineligible, or strongly suspect he is.
But truth and the rule of law and honesty and fair play mean nothing, less than nothing, to them. They see those who value honesty, rule of law and fair play as patsies to be destroyed.
I always appreciate any and all pings (from you and others). I read as much as I can.
Water’s getting hot.
It’s not going to stay under wraps forever.
“They see those who value honesty, rule of law and fair play as patsies”
That is so, SO true. They also see anybody who is nice as a rube who deserves whatever con can be pulled on him or her. There are some very nice people on FR. They give others the benefit of the doubt. The Alinky types see that as weakness and stupidity. They lie their butts off, and snicker because they’ve found someone ‘gullible’ enough to believe them.
They are mean, low people. It’s a shame they are allowed to romp roughshod over FR.
The same Republicans that “certified” the fraud to begin with?
“No, the “treaty” is not “just” about or applicable only to land owners.”
Then why does Donofrio himself allude to Article IX? He certainly SEEMS to be resting his argument on the language of Article IX:
“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.”
That last paragraph is DEAD WRONG. To respect Article IX does NOT require the U.S. to respect the status of “British subjects.” It only requires us to respect the status of a clearly articulated subset of British subjects, namely those owning land, their heirs or assigns.
I accept the dual citizen argument, but I believe Donofrio is stretching the truth in trying to rely on the Jay Treaty to make his case.
I really like the way you lay out the facts from the blog.
I read it this morning and was left a little confused on the vital points raised.
You display it fact after fact in a way that absolutely gets the point across for us that might have a tad bit of reading comprehension. :)
May I steal some of your layout for my own post with the link to ‘In our face’?
If you say no, I’m going to steal it anyway. :0)
The good ladies are really on top of the legal aspect of the Hawaii (HDOH) headfake.
Thank the Lord for them.
Oh boy, chess. I always wanted to own a beautiful chess set and have it prominently displayed on a gorgeous table. However, I didn’t want anyone to challenge me because I have no idea how to play.
Anyway, isn’t there some way (or maybe it’s already out there) for us to have a Conservative version of *Rules for Radicals*? Or is it because we play by the rules that’s not likely?
It’s actually an excerpt with no changes at all.
Good.
Yeah, those Republicans. Wouldn’t you like to see them subjected to cross-examination by a skilled prosecutor?
-----------------------------------------------------
I know your not being serious, that they would initiate an investigation that would ultimately show THEY were complicit in this...So I won't say grow up Jamese and be real.
Very true. But instead of clarifying or changing the Natural Born Citizen definition, the current group in Washington is doing everything in their power to ignore the issue by belittling Constitutionally-minded citizens and imprisoning a soldier for simply demanding due process.
It is not that we can not change the laws, it is that our federal government refuses to accept there is a problem that has been lingering since the early 1800’s and needs clarified. Once it is clarified, We the People and the federal government can amend it if necessary. This is clearly failing to occur so the process put in place by the framing fathers can not be completed properly.
Another way is that since the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, there have only been two classifications of Americans: born citizens and naturalized citizens and if a person is a Citizen of the United States at Birth as spelled out in the US Code, then they are a natural born citizen as well and if a person is a citizen but not a Citizen of the United States at Birth, then they are a naturalized citizen and therefore cannot qualify as a natural born citizen.
Under this second way to look at the issue, there is no problem, there is no confusion, the issue is settled law.
“The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,’ contemplates two sources of citizenship, AND ONLY TWO: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established BY THE MERE FACT OF BIRTH under circumstances described in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes AT ONCE a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.”–Supreme Court of the United States, US v Wong Kim Ark (1898)
How does one identify a “British” land owner, if one doesn’t respect and acknowledge their laws?
I know your not being serious, that they would initiate an investigation that would ultimately show THEY were complicit in this...So I won’t say grow up Jamese and be real.
james, we can always count on you to misread and misinterpret just about everything you post. You said, “since the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, there have only been two classifications of Americans: born citizens and naturalized citizens ...” which is demonstrably false. Your support citation says “two SOURCES” of citizenship, not two classifications. The two sources are only defined according to the 14th amendment. This is not a comprehensive statement on ALL citizenship in the United States. Gray acknolwedged natural born citizenship as a separate class of citizenship prior to his deliberation on 14th amendment citizenship. It’s really better for you to read but not post here ... at least not until you learn to post competently.
I suggest you post replies to the article posted rather than the voices in your head.
How many votes does the Queen have in the UN, via her many Commonwealth "nations"?
“The Kenyan Wonder Boy in the US” poster on Sarah Obama’s wall in her mud hut.
Feb 6 2008, Mosaic: World news from the Middle East
at 2:40 in the clip. Can you capture?
http://www.politicalarticles.net/blog/tag/siaya/
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.