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"
You actually know the answer to that...
Towards the end of Jan., I emailed our rep. and asked what “his” definition of a natural born citizen is. Very simple, right? This is the response:
Dear xxxxxx,
Thank you for contacting me about Senator Barack Obama and his status as a natural born citizen of the United States.
You may have heard rumors about Senator Obama not having a U.S. birth certificate. This is untrue. Senator Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, after it became a state on August 21, 1959.
The Internet has unfortunately become an easy avenue for people wishing to spread rumors, commit fraud, and create other types of havoc. Information gathered on the Internet should be double-checked before it is believed. Internet hoaxes are debunked on numerous websites like http://urbanlegends.about.com or http://snopes.com.
I hope that this information satisfies your concerns. Thank you again for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to do so again in the future. I also encourage you to visit my website, which may be found at http://flake.house.gov/.
Sincerely,
JEFF FLAKE
Member of Congress
Like you, I never mentioned dumB0’s name. I wrote back that I didn’t mention any names so why would he think I was asking about “senator obama” (I refuse to capitalize his name)?
I written before and this is the one and only response I’ve received.
WOW! Papa Alinsky is a bit upset today. So am I.
They’re despiccable cowards lacking principles and conviction.
His actions and attitudes toward Britain are contrary to being a loyal subject.
~~~~~~
It isn’t what he feels about the UK, which is utmost
disdain due to his alleged paternal family’s script
and bitterness ..
it’s what HE IS OFFICIALLY AND LEGALLY, and was at the moment of his birth, vis a vis his natural origin blood and citzenship status from who he says his father is.
The silly trolls have been reduced to spouting and pouting that Obama don’t like England. LoL
Your argument is a non sequitur and nonsense. Obama being a British Subject makes him ineligible to be president.
Libuurals like Jane “Vietcong” Fonda do not like the US of A, but she is still constitutionally eligible to be president. Or take your pick of a numerous American hating natural born citizens who could be president. Hating the country doesn’t amend the US Constitution. Being a hater does not make that person eligible or ineligible for presidential office.
What they don’t realize is that the boil is going to come to a head one way or another. The longer it takes, the worse it’s going to be. Pushing the inevitable into the future only insures that the resulting (whatever it is - chaos, crisis, etc) will be worse, the longer it takes.
Freaking disgusting cowards.
The non-responsive response. I get the same thing, or used to when I wasted my time contacting representatives.
Best thing you can do is work against them, oust them by local means, etc. Our federal government deserves nothing but scorn and contempt.
From the article:
"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. "
Mario Apuzzo lays it out for easy understanding.
"Obama, the Putative President of the U.S., was Born a British Subject Governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948,and is Currently also a British Protected Person and/or a British Citizen to This Day"
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/12/obama-putative-president-of-us-was-born.html
So you agree with me that his behavior reflects an anti-colonialists attitude while little or no evidence exists of a possible allegiance to Britain?
~~~~
Absolutely not.
His ‘allegiance’ to the UK is NOT his choice, nor could it be up to him or any baby. It JUST IS .. by virtue of the stated parents and their national citizenship status.
For him, and for what he purports himself to be and also purports there is documentation that backs it, that status was decided when his alleged mother allegedly chose a Kenyan/UK citizen to be the alleged sperm donor for the blessed event that allegedly produced him.
He said, “Information gathered on the Internet should be double-checked before it is believed. “
To which I would say, “Yeah, like the forged Factcheck COLB has been checked. The Hawaii Department of Health, HI Governor Abercrombie, and former elections office worker Tim Adams have debunked it as a forgery. It is believed to be a forgery because it has been more than triple-checked by sources who are SUPPOSED to be able to know, and they have all revealed that the Factcheck COLB is a forgery.”
yeah and everybody knows you are loyal subject of peregrine obama.
A subject is one who has been conquered this goes back to the Romans. The city was full of subjects.
Play the video.
He said, “Information gathered on the Internet should be double-checked before it is believed. “
To which I would say, “Yeah, like the forged Factcheck COLB has been checked. The Hawaii Department of Health, HI Governor Abercrombie, and former elections office worker Tim Adams have debunked it as a forgery. It is believed to be a forgery because it has been more than triple-checked by sources who are SUPPOSED to be able to know, and they have all revealed that the Factcheck COLB is a forgery.”
bump
And from that you get that Obama can't be President? I guess if your already convinced that he can't this will convince you more, but it looks pretty weak and tortured.
I'd have to do a lot more research on this, but maybe Obama is stateless, not allowed by Britain to settle in England, not recognized as a Kenyan citizen because he didn't opt for Kenya over Britain and the US, and not accepted as a "natural-born citizen" by you guys.
That's tongue in cheek, but sometimes I wonder, a man without a country ...
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.