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"
THIS IS A MUST READ!
BIG Florida Freeper ping here.
Please ping me with any news you receive on the recalled conference. Thanks!
Looks like the 2nd amendment might be the only thing that saves the USA. I hope everyone is armed just in case. The way it is going the collapse will be in May. This is going to be one Hell of a Summer.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM. WE CAN'T IDENTIFY HIM!...............
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The states vote for the president, in the Electoral College. In 2000, the legislature of the State of Florida disgraced itself by not reacting to the too-close-to-call election by taking responsibility to decide the election. I recognize that that could bite us some time in the future, but in fact the ultimate responsibility under the Constitution lies with the state legislatures.Likewise, each state has full authority to determine who may not have its electoral votes. Full Stop.
Therefore it is entirely appropriate for each state to pass a law delineating what proof it will accept as to the citizenship qualification of a candidate for POTUS. And the case of Mr. Obama and the Jay Treaty implications illustrates that the states have legitimate reason to inquire not only as to the location of a candidate's birth, but as to the status and implications of the parent's citizenship and any provable dissociation of a candidate from US citizenship as well.
What, after all, does location citizenship matter if the candidate has renounced his citizenship and is not even a US citizen at all, notwithstanding the site of his birth.
Talk about a Logic 101 flunk out!
“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.”
Oh, how I wish EVERY SCOTUS judge would follow these instructions on EVERY case.
Who, beside Mr. Rodgers and yourself, are claiming Barry was "loyal" to the crown?
He was, however, a subject to the crown. By birthright.
>>So why the Hell are the Republicans not raising hell about it?<<
They are prostitutes. Sold their office, their vote and their ass for money.
They said, you don’t understand, if this story turns out to be true, we fear it could lead to a civil war within America.” This is what they are telling me, that you’re going to have African Americans so embittered, remaining loyal to Obama, so many liberals, so embittered, loyal to Obama, but so many people in the rest of the country now feeling that there is a serious constitutional breach, that everything that he has passed, because he is unconstitutional, and doesn’t have the right legal authority, everything that he has passed is thereby illegal and unconstitutional. It will literally be the worst constitutional crisis that ever gripped this country, so they don’t want to touch this. So you have the media abdicating their responsibility to pursue the truth and hold their politicians accountable.
And that's why no one will touch the eligibility issue.
You read enough of these threads to be familiar with the terms that are often used to describe his NBC status..."divided loyalties" or "dual allegiance". While I agree our President should have unquestionable loyalty to America, the overwhelming evidence is Obama has considerable disdain for the U.K. His actions and attitudes toward Britain are contrary to being a loyal subject.
So why the Hell are the Republicans not raising hell about it?
___________________________________________________________________________________
a) no one wants to the first domino
b) you don’t pull on Superman’s cape
c) the outrage will be targeted at them for letting it get this far
d) they have no real gain from this, any they get will be washed out by turmoil of the situation
e) there will be turmoil, massive turmoil (at best). So they are trying to ride it out till 2012.
Add to this list if you want...
I’m praying with every spare bit of brainspace I’ve got, between getting ready for Nebraska’s eligibility bill and another important project. The Hemenway outcome all depends on whether Sotomayor and Kagan can be shamed into stopping their blatant corruption. Maybe I can pray for locusts, frogs, and a plague of darkness just on their part of town. =) Stranger things have happened.
This must realy be the crux of why bo hates the brits, he knows that he is one and it eats him up. The sooner he is exposed the better. One good rep and we would be set, too bad the repubs don’t have an Allan Greyson!
They went to the Elmer Fudd school of politics
You read enough of these threads to be familiar with the terms that are often used to describe his NBC status..."divided loyalties" or "dual allegiance". While I agree our President should have unquestionable loyalty to America, the overwhelming evidence is Obama has considerable disdain for the U.K. His actions and attitudes toward Britain are contrary to being a loyal subject...besides the two of you detractors on the eligibility issue.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Don't recall anybody claiming he was a "loyal" subject, besides the detractors of the eligibility issue in an attempt to belittle the laws of citizenship and international treaties.
But, if Obama Sr. was his legal father at birth...there's no getting around the fact that he was a born British subject, with allegiance owed and all.
the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that dual nationality is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both." See Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952).http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86563.pdf
However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there...http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html
Not so lovely that he neglects to mention that the stated purpose of the treaty is to clean up the loose ends of the Revolutionary War; and that Article IX can only be properly understood in that context.
Poor, poor Leo.
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.