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 very key point, what many members in the liberal media have been saying is that Obama’s eligibility is a bombshell of a story, it’ll be like Watergate, it’ll make your name, all you have to do is break this story, I mean you’re going to look at Pulitzer prizes for the rest of your life, you’ll be wealthy beyond imagination, you’ll have all the fame and glory a journalist could ever want.”
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.
There are quite a few states with Black populations under 5%; for example, Vermont, Alaska, New Hampshire, Maine, Montana, Idaho, Oregon, North Dakota, New Mexico, Iowa, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, South Dakota and of course, the most important state to Obama eligibility, Hawai’i has 3% African American population.
Those states would be the perfect places for state legislatures or grand juries to take up this issue since Obama’s name was on the ballot in all those states.
No Rogers. It isn’t funny at all. It is idiots, morons, and ignoramuses like you who let issues like this slide. Its how we got here, hence my contempt for your proposition.
We the people, those who voted for him, allowed it. Shoot, we didn’t get any choice in the matter as McCain has the same problem. Now considering the fact that the PRESS is the one who annointed McCain and got him nominated because that is who Obama preferred to run against, sends up a LOT of REAL RED FLAGS. There are those who WANTED an unconstitutional president! One way or another, the powers that be wanted an unconstitutional president!!
Have you seriously NEVER stopped to ask yourself why??
The Constitution is what made this Nation, and what has enabled it to remain free, and become the greatest society with the best government thus far known to this planet. And you are making excuses and trying to justify its demise??
GTFO. You are offensive beyone the pale.
Thus my tagline....
Some people are unwilling to admit when they are wrong. I have done it, publically I might add. Rogers can’t.
Many of which are dependent one way or another on government handouts.
Because everyone knows that SNOPES always tells the truth.....hahahaha
After WWII many states modified their laws to prevent “stateless” births, IIRC, especially for births to single moms.
If Obama was born in Kenya, then whether he received US citizenship from his US citizen mom depends on whether she was legally married at the time. My research leads me to conclude she was bigamously married under US, HI, UK and Kenyan colonial laws and was thus legally single. So per the US law in effect in 1961 his mom only needed one year of US residenceto pass citizenship to Obama for a foreign birth (see below) and Obama would be a US citizen, but not eligible as NBC.
The BNA of 1948 does NOT pass UK citizenship to illegitimate children, which would presumably include children of bigamous marriages, IIRC, so if Obama's parent's marriage was bigamous and Obama was born in HI, he would have unitary US citizenship from his legally single mom.
Any claims as to whether Obama is NBC or not depend on "facts not in evidence," IMO.
Where was he born?
Who were his parents?
Where they married?
Was the marriage bigamous?
Was the marriage recognized by the UK?
Was the marriage recognized by the US?
Is unitary citizenship from a single mom on US soil NBC?
SCOTUS rulings on all of these issues (and UK rulings on some of them) would seem to be required to prove Obama is not NBC with the single exception that proof of a foreign birth hidden by Obama would be fraud and "automatically" exclude him in the court of public opinion, IMO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law#Birth_abroad_to_one_United_States_citizen
For persons born between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true (except if born out-of-wedlock)[7]:
1.The person's parents were married at the time of birth
2.One of the person's parents was a U.S. citizen when the person was born
3.The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child's birth;
4.A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday.
For persons born out-of-wedlock (mother) if all the following apply:
1.the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth and
2.the mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person’s birth.[8] (See link for those born to a U.S. father out-of-wedlock)[7]
FWIW That theory is a real possiblity.
Again, it all comes down to one simple fact no one can avoid or discount. WE DON’T KNOW. Obama does, and its bad enough for him to go to insane lengths to hide it.
The black population in Oregon is low, but it is made up for by insane drug addled socialists and progressives.
Many of which are dependent one way or another on government handouts.
And that's why no one will touch the eligibility issue.
There is no doubt that many will explaiin their behavior as you have. James Carvill said it publicly, before the election, when there were already many raising eligibility concerns. The most clever tactic of the left was to actively enable McCain's candidacy, after having questioned his eligibility since the 2000 election, with three law suits, lots of congressional hearings and dozens (if not hundreds) of newspaper articles. McCain fought the conservatives in the Repblican party and won. If they questioned Obama's obvious inelibility publically, they threw the election.
We can remove the complicit legislators one-by-one, but we must move the discussion to the costs of recognizing the governance of the Constitution - or not. Are the threats of a race war valid? It has become a cost/benefit analysis. The knowledgeable, and all Senators because the signed Senate Res 511, know he is ineligible. But educating citizens in the face of complicity in the coverup by all major media, is not easy.
Not only does this writer believe that black citizens know they are being used, and don't see themselves represented by a Punahao-Occidental-Columbia-Harvard-bred communist. Some know Obama went to Kenya to campaign for his KGB-trained cousin Odinga (who named his son Fidel), whose Islamic supporters killed thousands of black Christians in Kenya to force power sharing, because he lost the election and didn't get to impose Sharia Law. Obama, in violation of U.S. law, raised campaign money for Odinga. Many realize that Obama is about guaranteeing the jobs of millions of overpaid bureaucrats, most of them white. These bureaucrats produce nothing, and, as in Wisconsin, regard themselves as entitled to twice the salary plus benefits of private sector taxpayers, who aren't free to fire them for inferior performance, on nonperformance.
Our legislators are negotiating because that is what they are paid to do. Nothing signed by Obama is a legal contract. If we don't remove him the mess is only compounded. If his ineligibility is not exposed, the complicity, even partnership, of major bankers, GE, GM, mean that Obama might get four more years to destroy our capitalist representative republic. Obama clearly sees the possiblity of his becoming another Chavez, Ortega, Castro.
We need to take a page from Mr. Roger's and James777's playbook, cogently explaining the truth through the alternative media. We have the advantage of dozens of clear citations from most of our framers, founders, and great legal minds. Mr. Rogers and James are stuck with the ridiculously muddled Horace Gray's Wong Kim Ark, and their admirable searches to find the few obscure state court or supreme court dissenting dicta which muddy the words of John Jay, John Marshall, Morrison Waite, John Bingam, St. George Tucker, Madison,... Fortunately, truth is easier to understand. Because truth is important to us, we couldn't hire Mr. Rogers or James777, but perhaps the law students at UofConn. who created undeadrevolution.wordpress.com can be engaged?
I know that. The legislature is pretty well split 50-50 with a slight dem leaning. And a RABID Demorcat governor. He will never sign the legislation, and there are not enough votes to overcome a veto. Oregon is hopeless, trust me.
Prayers up for brave Leo!
And said sperm donor never became an American citizen prior to the child's birth.
True!
BTW, when I pressed Leo on his blog last year on my list of uncertainties which undermine Leo's claim that Obama is an ineligible US-UK dual citizen, IIRC, Leo said that for his purposes in bringing his cases to court (presumably including any future Chrysler or Quo Warranto cases) he considers the statement by Obama’s agents that the children of Obama Sr are governed by the 1948 BNA to be an “admission against interest” that he intends to rely on.
When a party makes an “admission against interest” such as Obama’s statement implying that he was born a UK subject, it is a sort of testimony against ones-self which is like an unsolicited stipulation that an opposing party can rely on and use against Obama. (Not a lawyer by way too much court experience)
IIRC, in Leo's view the burden of proof would be on Obama to prove that he was NOT governed by the 1948 BNA to obtain unitary US citizenship eligibility from his single mom.
Leo knows the bigamous marriage could be an issue but chooses not to address it.
Note that the Obama team only claimed that the children of Obama Sr. were governed by the 1948 BNA and then stated an inference (not under oath) that Obama was born a UK subject. But once again, that same 1948 British Nationality Act excluded illegitimate children of UK subject fathers.
Leo did not become interested Obama’s hidden HI vital records until he became convinced that all of his dual citizen NBC work would go out the window (legally valid but essentially moot) if the marriage of Obama parents could not be proved, Obama’s US birth could not be proved and if, for example, a Kenyan birth was authenticated.
So Leo is NOT in the camp who believes that “it does not matter where Obama was born.” Leo knows fully well that it DOES matter where Obama was born in addition to the citizenship and marriage validity of his parents.
He could live out his days in a U.S. Naval vessel moored offshore.
“Now considering the fact that the PRESS is the one who annointed McCain and got him nominated because that is who Obama preferred to run against, sends up a LOT of REAL RED FLAGS.”
Really? It didn’t have anything to do with votes in the primaries? The GOP just has mind-numbed robots? I despise McCain, but he won the primaries.
“The Constitution is what made this Nation, and what has enabled it to remain free, and become the greatest society with the best government thus far known to this planet. And you are making excuses and trying to justify its demise??”
So why are you trying to change the Constitution? It says natural born citizen, and that had a legal meaning at the time it was written. That meaning allowed for the child of alien parents to become President.
“Citizenship falls from father to son.”
Nope. Not in the USA.
Proof. It Was in Front of Our Faces.
http://obamasgarden.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/proof-it-was-in-front-of-our-faces/
“We may have to have some people arrested.”
—Bob Bauer
Where has Mr. Donofrio said Barry was “anti-colonialist”? Please cite.
(British Barry didn’t seem to do anything last year to stop the British WMD attack on the Gulf Coast, BTW.)
Regardless, having a dual national in the White House who holds rage against his natural homeland can be just as dangerous as someone who holds loyalty to his natural homeland. We don’t need this kind of person acting out his psychodrama with his finger on the proverbial button. We need a commander-in-chief with singular American loyalty and American interest — unclouded by personal rage stemming from his natural history with another nation.
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.