The Jay Treaty Strongly Indicates That Obama Is Not Eligible To Be President.

naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ^ | 03/02/2011 | Leo Donofrio, Esq

[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"

From: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/the-jay-treaty-strongly-indicates-that-obama-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/

[devattel]

Under this second way to look at the issue, there is no problem, there is no confusion, the issue is settled law.

There is "no confusion" because you are attempting to define something without clear definition with something similar and clearly defined in the Constitution. As I have mentioned over and over and over and over and over again, the 14th Amendment did not nor could not (re)define Natural Born Citizenship because it was intended to grant citizenship to emancipated black slaves who had no citizenship at birth.

That is why you do not see "Natural Born Citizen" in the amendment. Wong Kim Ark is the biggest fallacy the Supreme Court has ever decided on, and many historians agree. All it takes is one gander at the dissertation from David Ramsey in 1789 discussing this matter to see just how off-base their decision was.

And before anyone questions David Ramsey's authority he was the president PRO TEMPORE of the Continental Congress between 1785 and 1786 when John Hancock was elected but could not attend. He was also the premier U.S. political historian at the time and was promoted to the position of Congressional historian because of it. I will take Ramsey's definition and concepts over any supreme court's sloppy interpretation of a law. Ironically, in WKA, they failed to cite Ramsey's work when the knew full well it was the definitive answer to the intents of Article II eligibility requirements during the transition of British and American citizens between 1776 and 1789.

Even the authors of the 14th Amendment clearly understood and stated Natural Born Citizenship was in no way redefined. I simply do not understand why people continue to attempt to make poor conclusions such as this. The only way to redefine what Natural Born Citizenship is to amend it once the Supreme Court tells us what it means in the context of the law. And that law is ARTICLE II of the United States Constitution. It is not in the context of "John Q. Public" who comes off the boat fresh from China. It is in regards to Barack Obama, John McCain, Romney, Callero, Palin, Biden, and other politician on the ballots. This is the only way to make a change to its meaning, regardless of how "outdated", "sexist", or "taboo" you or anyone else believes it to be!

[devattel]

Under this second way to look at the issue, there is no problem, there is no confusion, the issue is settled law.

There is "no confusion" because you are attempting to define something without clear definition with something similar (yet distinctly different) and clearly defined in the Constitution. As I have mentioned over and over again like a broken record, the 14th Amendment did not nor could not (re)define Natural Born Citizenship because it was intended to grant citizenship to emancipated black slaves who had no citizenship at birth.

That is why you do not see "Natural Born Citizen" in the amendment. Wong Kim Ark is the biggest fallacy the Supreme Court has ever decided on. All it takes is one gander at the dissertation from David Ramsey in 1789 discussing this matter to see just how off-base their decision was. No review of "common British Law" is required.

And before anyone questions David Ramsey's authority he was the president PRO TEMPORE of the Continental Congress between 1785 and 1786 when John Hancock was elected but could not attend. He was also the premier U.S. political historian at the time and was promoted to the position of Congressional historian because of it. I will take Ramsey's definition and concepts over any supreme court's sloppy interpretation of a law. Ironically, in WKA, they failed to cite Ramsey's work when the knew full well it was the definitive answer to the intents of Article II eligibility requirements during the transition of British and American citizens between 1776 and 1789.

Even the authors of the 14th Amendment clearly understood and stated Natural Born Citizenship was in no way redefined. I simply do not understand why people continue to attempt to make poor conclusions such as this. The only way to redefine what Natural Born Citizenship is to amend it once the Supreme Court tells us what it means in the context of the law. And that law is ARTICLE II of the United States Constitution. It is not in the context of "John Q. Public" who comes off the boat fresh from China. It is in regards to Barack Obama, John McCain, Romney, Callero, Palin, Biden, and other politician on the ballots. This is the only way to make a change to its meaning, regardless of how "outdated", "sexist", or "taboo" you or anyone else believes it to be.

[jamese777]

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.

---

There is no difference between a “source of citizenship” and a “classification of citizenship.”

The proof is in the pudding. The law of the land ONLY covers two classifications of citizenship: (1) “Citizen of the United States at Birth;” and (2) “Nationalized Citizen.”

There is no functional difference under the law between a Citizen of the United States at birth and a Natural Born Citizen that has EVER been adjudicated by any court or that has ever been codified in any act passed by a Congress and signed into law by a President.

If there was a functional legal difference between a Citizen of the United States at Birth and a Natural Born Citizen, Barack Hussein Obama II could not have had his name appear on the ballot in 50 states plus the federal district and he could not have been elected President of the United States, had his Electoral College votes counted and certified by Congress without objection, or had the Oath of Office administered to him by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

There have been ninety adjudications in civil suits challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility over three years. Not one court has ever ruled that he is ineligible under Article II, Section 1. The latest attempt is being heard in Justices’ conference at the Supreme Court of the United States today in a second conference hearing on “Hollister v Soetoro.” That is the thirteenth attempt at the Supreme Court of the United States. We will know Monday or Tuesday of next week whether the Justices agree to hear Hollister v Soetoro.

[Greenperson]

You’ve nailed it, bluecat6, and in a precise, easy-to-understand way. Case closed. BOGUS. Every one.

[jamese777]

There is “no confusion” because you are attempting to define something without clear definition with something similar (yet distinctly different) and clearly defined in the Constitution. As I have mentioned over and over again like a broken record, the 14th Amendment did not nor could not (re)define Natural Born Citizenship because it was intended to grant citizenship to emancipated black slaves who had no citizenship at birth.

That is why you do not see “Natural Born Citizen” in the amendment. Wong Kim Ark is the biggest fallacy the Supreme Court has ever decided on. All it takes is one gander at the dissertation from David Ramsey in 1789 discussing this matter to see just how off-base their decision was. No review of “common British Law” is required.

And before anyone questions David Ramsey’s authority he was the president PRO TEMPORE of the Continental Congress between 1785 and 1786 when John Hancock was elected but could not attend. He was also the premier U.S. political historian at the time and was promoted to the position of Congressional historian because of it. I will take Ramsey’s definition and concepts over any supreme court’s sloppy interpretation of a law. Ironically, in WKA, they failed to cite Ramsey’s work when the knew full well it was the definitive answer to the intents of Article II eligibility requirements during the transition of British and American citizens between 1776 and 1789.

Even the authors of the 14th Amendment clearly understood and stated Natural Born Citizenship was in no way redefined. I simply do not understand why people continue to attempt to make poor conclusions such as this. The only way to redefine what Natural Born Citizenship is to amend it once the Supreme Court tells us what it means in the context of the law. And that law is ARTICLE II of the United States Constitution. It is not in the context of “John Q. Public” who comes off the boat fresh from China. It is in regards to Barack Obama, John McCain, Romney, Callero, Palin, Biden, and other politician on the ballots. This is the only way to make a change to its meaning, regardless of how “outdated”, “sexist”, or “taboo” you or anyone else believes it to be.

---

“Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a “natural born subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in allegiance of the United States, natural born citizens.”—Indiana Court of Appeals in Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, November 12, 2009.
The decision in Ankeny was appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court which refused to hear the appeal and the decision has not been appealed to the federal courts.

If and when some court, any court in the land agrees with your interpretation with regard to Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility, then I will give your point of view serious consideration and a legitimate way to look at this issue. Until then, not so much.

According to Westlaw, “Wong Kim Ark” has been cited in more than 1000 subsequent decisions. It is stare decisis as of this date.

[edge919]

The proof is in the pudding. The law of the land ONLY covers two classifications of citizenship: (1) “Citizen of the United States at Birth;” and (2) “Nationalized Citizen.”

Dude, "nationalized" citizen???? You're losing it. Again, I recommend you stop posting until you learn do so competently. You've been schooled too many times on these issues.

[Fantasywriter]

The fact that the Founders didn't spend time debating the meaning of NBC is actually a major point in your favor. It indicates they all clearly knew what it meant. It's like today, when a conservative says, 'illegal immigrant', we don't spend hours and days trying to define the term. We all know exactly what it means. Ditto the Founders. They only had to debate issues that needed clarification--not the ones they all clearly understood a priori.

[devattel]

jamese777 said:

According to Westlaw, “Wong Kim Ark” has been cited in more than 1000 subsequent decisions. It is stare decisis as of this date.

In every single case citing WKA, not one of them is in the context of Article II. What the majority of these cases are citing is based on "anchor baby" citizenship.

I find it most curious the supreme court injected the Natural Born Citizenship clause to begin with. There is simply no reason to introduce it as the 14th Amendment is very clear on the matter of being born in the U.S. to foreign citizens. If the child is born in the U.S. subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, the child is a U.S. Citizen.

If you can convince me that Wong Kim Ark was running for office of the President of the United States, then I might accept your argument.

[jamese777]

Dude, “nationalized” citizen???? You’re losing it. Again, I recommend you stop posting until you learn do so competently. You’ve been schooled too many times on these issues.

---

Here’s what I’m talking about in the law of the land:
http://law.justia.com/codes/us/title8/chapter12_subchapteriii_.html

[devattel]

Fantasywriter said:

The fact that the Founders didn't spend time debating the meaning of NBC is actually a major point in your favor. It indicates they all clearly knew what it meant. It's like today, when a conservative says, 'illegal immigrant', we don't spend hours and days trying to define the term. We all know exactly what it means. Ditto the Founders. They only had to debate issues that needed clarification--not the ones they all clearly understood a priori.

You are 100% correct. It was one of the rare few requirements that remained unchanged throughout the ratification. Citizens understood what allegiance meant then. Citizens do NOT understand what allegiance means now.

Many countries have removed the ability to allow dual citizens in their nation. Ireland was one of the more recent. They understood the harm that was occurring in their country by the pure "watering down" of the importance of sole citizenship. Without unified allegiance, a nation will fall because there isn't a clear generational investment to the nation it represents.

I equate it to free agents in the NFL. It is difficult for a team to grow together and produce a sense of harmony when all you have is a resident you can not assume will be there next season. And when they run over to the opposing team when they feel it is in their own personal best interest, all their knowledge of their prior team goes with them.

Does this encourage a healthy society of citizens with a unified sense of sovereignty? I think not!

[jamese777]

In every single case citing WKA, not one of them is in the context of Article II. What the majority of these cases are citing is based on “anchor baby” citizenship.

I find it most curious the supreme court injected the Natural Born Citizenship clause to begin with. There is simply no reason to introduce it as the 14th Amendment is very clear on the matter of being born in the U.S. to foreign citizens. If the child is born in the U.S. subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, the child is a U.S. Citizen.

If you can convince me that Wong Kim Ark was running for office of the President of the United States, then I might accept your argument.

---

I can’t convince you on a historic hypothetical but I bet I can convince you that Barack Hussein Obama II ran for president, was elected 44th President of the United States and in 90 adjudicated attempts to challenge his eligibility as a natural born citizen, no court including the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled him to be ineligible.

[devattel]

jamese777 said:

I can’t convince you on a historic hypothetical but I bet I can convince you that Barack Hussein Obama II ran for president, was elected 44th President of the United States and in 90 adjudicated attempts to challenge his eligibility as a natural born citizen, no court including the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled him to be ineligible.

Thank you. Now we are getting somewhere. This is fact. It is the fact we all have to deal with. However, what is also fact is that the issue of Natural Born Citizenship (or lack thereof) will rear its ugly head again. The courts can continue to "kick the can" down the street for a latter court to decide.

Or, they can decide now and resolve this situation before reelection occurs, preventing yet another stain on the history of this nation. The truth will be revealed, and when it does, any trust the citizens of this country had for the Supreme Court and the judicial system will be null and void should Obama fail to have qualified. The same will apply to the DNC and RNC, if they are still in power. They will lose all authority they have to pick and choose qualified candidates. It does not bode well for them to ignore this issue.

[Fantasywriter]

Well said! I found your info re: Ireland fascinating. When even Europe is figuring it out, it can only mean one thing: American leftists will double down on their error. ;)

The football analogy is good, except for one thing. Even a free agent has every motivation to play well. His value to the team paying him, and more importantly to future teams, rises and falls on his performance. He may—and certainly will—undercut the esprit de corps (or should I say ‘corpse’?), but at least the agent is playing for his team for all he’s worth.

A POTUS with divided loyalties may very well play for the other side. When you’re dealing with a post-American, post-modern marxist with an axe to grind—and he’s not even a NBC—it only makes sense he would play for HIS team, not ours. That is what the Founders intended to prevent. In the Age of Stupidity, there are plenty who don’t understand that, but it’s true nonetheless.

[edge919]

Here’s what I’m talking about in the law of the land:

The Supreme Court said natural born citizenship is defined outside the Constitution. They distinguished it as a separate class of citizenship than those who are born without regard to the citizenship of the parents. IOW, it is not defined by statute or legal codes. Plus, your link doesn't address your obvious error. Again, you should refrain from embarrassing yourself further. Read, don't post.

[edge919]

no court including the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled him to be ineligible.

Technically ... no court has ruled him to be eligible. Yes, they've denied cases, but they've not issued an actual ruling on his eligibility. By denying standing, the courts are punting the issue and rejecting claims on different procedural issues. Even the Indiana idiots in the Ankeny appeal were smart enough not to say Obama was constitutionally eligible for office.

[jamese777]

Thank you. Now we are getting somewhere. This is fact. It is the fact we all have to deal with. However, what is also fact is that the issue of Natural Born Citizenship (or lack thereof) will rear its ugly head again. The courts can continue to “kick the can” down the street for a latter court to decide.

Or, they can decide now and resolve this situation before reelection occurs, preventing yet another stain on the history of this nation. The truth will be revealed, and when it does, any trust the citizens of this country had for the Supreme Court and the judicial system will be null and void should Obama fail to have qualified. The same will apply to the DNC and RNC, if they are still in power. They will lose all authority they have to pick and choose qualified candidates. It does not bode well for them to ignore this issue.

---

It is certainly true that we might get clarifying legislation out of Congress or a precedent setting court decision at any time. That’s the way our system works.
I wonder if Obama would sign an eligibility bill into law?
Since the Constitution is unequivocably clear on its prohibitions against ex post facto laws and Bills of Attainder, we have to look to the future.

[devattel]

jamese777 said:

I wonder if Obama would sign an eligibility bill into law?

It depends on whether the Supreme Court will make a decision before 2012 (or later should he be re-elected). If they decide and he is found ineligible, he will not be able to sign anything ever again.

[jamese777]

It depends on whether the Supreme Court will make a decision before 2012 (or later should he be re-elected). If they decide and he is found ineligible, he will not be able to sign anything ever again.

---

The Supreme Court is not a court of original jurisdiction. They would send an appeal back to the Court of Appeals for a trial on the merits. After that trial and appeals are heard and the actual finding gets back to the Supremes, it would be well after the 2012 election.

After the Supremes conference on Hollister v Soetoro today, there is no Obama eligibility appeal on their docket for the rest of 2011.

Look up the “de facto officer” doctrine and you’ll see that no actions of Obama’s would be invalidated by a later finding of ineligibility.

[GGMac]

jamese777 said: “...in 90 adjudicated attempts to challenge his eligibility as a natural born citizen, no court including the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled him to be ineligible.”

Not a lawyer here - nor even a law student - so perhaps I’m just ignorant of some legal fact of which jamese777 is aware, regarding court rulings.

I’ve always been under the impression that under the US judicial system, in order for there to be a court ruling in a case - the case must first be “heard”.

Perhaps there’s a list somewhere of all those “is Obama eligible to be US president” cases - not those waiting in limbo, or those smacked down due to “lack of standing” - bet those cited...no, not cited...hhmmmmm...implied by jamese777 as having been heard and ruled upon by the Supreme Court, and whatever other courts.

Thank you in advance for enlightening me.

[devattel]

jamese777 said:

The Supreme Court is not a court of original jurisdiction. They would send an appeal back to the Court of Appeals for a trial on the merits. After that trial and appeals are heard and the actual finding gets back to the Supremes, it would be well after the 2012 election.

The Supreme Court is a court of original jurisdiction. Here are the cases where a party can directly submit a case to the Supreme Court, as per U.S. Code:

(a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.

(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:

(1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;

(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;

(3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.

Obama can not pass any further law upon immediate decree he is ineligible, should the case ever be decided and the decision claims the Natural Born Citizen clause is what it is supposed to mean.

A sidebar to this is why the multiple states did not just go directly to the Supreme Court for the health care bill. Apparently the attorney generals do not know the law.