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

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

[seekthetruth]

THIS IS A MUST READ!

BIG Florida Freeper ping here.

[rxsid]

John Jay, President of the Continental Congress from 1778 to 1779 and, from 1789 to 1795, the first Chief Justice of the United States, leading opponent of slavery and the founder who wrote to George Washington regarding the suggestion that the POTUS be a NBC , had Vattel in his home library:
"One division [Of the library in Jay's "Bedford House"] contains the favorite authors of the Chief Justice, weighty folios of Grotius, Puffendorf, Vattel and other masters of the science of international law, standard theological and miscellaneous works and the classic authors of antiquity. Pg. 108. "

[seekthetruth]

Please ping me with any news you receive on the recalled conference. Thanks!

[Tex-Con-Man]

Claiming Obama is loyal to the British Crown, while at the same time calling him an anti-colonialist is going to be an impossible sell.

[screaminsunshine]

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.

[Red Badger]

In order to respect the legal rights of British subjects, the US must be able to identify them.

THAT'S THE PROBLEM. WE CAN'T IDENTIFY HIM!...............

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

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.

[Don Corleone]

“The US is sovereign and not governed by foreign law so British law shouldn’t be considered as to Presidential eligibility.

Talk about a Logic 101 flunk out!

[newfreep]

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.”

Oh, how I wish EVERY SCOTUS judge would follow these instructions on EVERY case.

[rxsid]

"Claiming Obama is loyal to the British Crown, while at the same time calling him an anti-colonialist is going to be an impossible sell. "

Who, beside Mr. Rodgers and yourself, are claiming Barry was "loyal" to the crown?

He was, however, a subject to the crown. By birthright.

[B4Ranch]

>>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.

[Beckwith]

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.

[Tex-Con-Man]

Who, beside Mr. Rodgers and yourself, are claiming Barry was "loyal" to the crown?

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.

[bluecat6]

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...

[butterdezillion]

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.

[DCmarcher-976453]

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!

[liberalh8ter]

Exactly....it's why he takes it so personally.

[screaminsunshine]

They went to the Elmer Fudd school of politics

[rxsid]

"Who, beside Mr. Rodgers and yourself, are claiming Barry was "loyal" to the crown?

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

[r9etb]

Poor Leo is really reaching now. Lovely that he mentions Article IX of a treaty.

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.