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"
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.
No Health Care lawsuit has sought a Supreme Court ruling as an original jurisdiction case either.
Everyone is making this so complicated.
How can you impeach a person that is not legally a President? If you can prove it, just send the Sheriff in to send him to court and lock him up until he proves he is a legit citizen?
Everyone is making this so complicated.
Why Hillary never did anything about this will always bug me. My guess, she realized it after it was too late.
Listen..its time to move along..you made a gallant effort supporting your golden calf Obama..this is not to be denied but at this point you are only embarrassing yourself.
Please show some self respect..think of your dignity. Its time to go.
Take care and God Bless.
Listen..its time to move along..you made a gallant effort supporting your golden calf Obama..this is not to be denied but at this point you are only embarrassing yourself.
Please show some self respect..think of your dignity. Its time to go.
Take care and God Bless.
Thank you jamese777. Best factual reply I have received on a subject ever ib FR.
I was hoping that everything that he has signed would be void. According to your facts...it would hold up. He is the President now like it or not.
Why Hillary never did anything about this will always bug me. My guess, she realized it after it was too late.
Everything that Obama has signed into law originated in Congress and if it is still the law of the land, that means that the Supreme Court has not found it to be unconstitutional (yet). Under our system of government, it takes all three branches of government to implement law.
Have we located both editions?
“Two London editions of Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations were in circulation at this time: a 1759—;60 edition in 2 vols., and a 1760 edition in one.”
Congressional Globe, 1833-1873 : Index to 28th Congress, 2nd Session
INDEX TO THE APPENDIX.
28th Cong.Senate and House of Representatives.2d Sess.
A.
Adams, J. Q., on the western boundary of Louisiana ... 187
Alabama, concerning the debts of ... 52
Allegiance, natural. (See Webster. See Vattel.)
http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:20:./temp/~ammem_ff0W::
Of course. None of them fit the criteria of original jurisdiction. I was merely correcting your statement that the Supreme Court does not have any original jurisdicition.
Obama waited until AFTER she conceded the primary to release his fraudulent COLB. As much dirt as she might have had on him, not even she would have been able to access his birth records in Hawaii. She had no way of knowing he was going to post a fraudulent COLB. By then, it WAS too late. Had she complained, it would have looked like sour grapes or the race card would have been played.
James is an 0h0m0 toady. Don’t believe anything he posts. Lies, distortion, dissimulation, obfuscation, misquotes, partial quotes, and worse are his methods.
page 100
MR. SAUNDERS'S REPORT ON NATURALIZATION
First, the act of 1802, which repeals all former acts.
It restores the provision of the declaration of intention to three years before application, and a residence of 5 years before admission, and requires proof of good character, renunciation of former allegiance, as well as of all titles or orders of nobility, and an oath to support the constitution; it requires the “registry” of aliens “in order” to become citizens, and the production of the certificate of registration when applying for admission. It further provides for the children of aliens, whether born within or out of the United States
An Act To establish an uniform rule of Naturalization and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject
Approved April 14 1802 US Statutes at Large Vol 2 pp 153 155
SEC 4 And be it further enacted That the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States or who previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the government of the United States may have become citizens of any one of the said states under the laws thereof being under the age of twenty one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship shall if dwelling in the United States be considered as citizens of the United States
So clearly we see that some states proffered local citizenship to children of aliens born in that state prior to the adoption of the 1st US Naturalization Act of 1790, but it was not until the father was naturalized & became himself a US Citizen that the child, if under the age of 21, became a US Citizen after the 1790 Act was passed, thus his allegiance was utterly temp & local and had nothing to do with US Nationality.
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.