Posted on 02/14/2012 3:17:10 AM PST by Flotsam_Jetsome
Having followed the Obama "natural born" citizenship quandary since its inception, I had always viewed the controversy over Obama's birthplace and other records as a diversion from the real issue: Obama's dual citizenship precluded his constitutional eligibility. My position was also influenced by my desire to elevate discussion on the inextricably related issue of birthright citizenship as a key component in effective immigration reform. Birthright citizenship is the practice of conferring U.S. citizenship to every baby born on U.S. soil, regardless of the nationality, domicile, or legal status of its parents. The practice, seen by many as an illegal immigration magnet, also often results in the dilemma of double allegiance, a "supra-citizen" status held by millions of Americans. Although the State Department rarely enforces its policies discouraging dual citizenship, it does recognize its security clearance implications. And the department confirmed that Obama was born a dual citizen.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/obamas_eligibility_diversion.html#ixzz1mLwFXoEP
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
No, it reveals your ubiquitous nature on these threads.
Quite frankly, it's boring and all too obvious.
I’ll try harder.
LOL...you’re still trolling here?
I thought I smelled something on this thread ;)
The “Sanity Squad”.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2846313/posts
Obama To Unleash “Truth Teams” To Counter Negative Coverage
You’re very welcome. It was a great article. :)
Awww... You’re just sayin’ that.
Go piss on another leg.
Good catch lj!
Truth = Lies, Sanity = Psychosis, etc.
The usual....
The Jay Treaty Strongly Indicates That Obama Is Not Eligible To Be President.
naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ^ | 03/02/2011 | Leo Donofrio, Esq
“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”
Thanks, DMZFrank.
The FoIA reply only stated that they had no knowledge of Obama’s status. Can’t find copy of the reply at moment.
That doesn't sound very conservative. I personally would reject any other country's efforts to limit my Constitutional rights. What about you?
What is left out of that “analysis” is the effect of dual citizenship. The Jay treaty assume a either/or situation of either American or British citizenship. What if a person has both? American and international law is very clear in that case - in America, the American government has claim to his allegiance and he cannot claim any advantages of his British citizenship. And vice versa. This is the Master Nationality Rule which is a consequence of Article 4 of The Hague Convention.
“In terms of practical effect, it means that when a dual citizen is in the country of one of his two nationalities, that country has the right to treat that person as if he or she were solely a citizen or national of that country. This includes the right to impose military service obligations, or to require an exit permit to leave.”
“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?”
Let me guess - “law of nations” equals Vattel.
Exactly right. This is also true of the Treaty of 1783, which the Supreme Court affirmed would make a person EITHER a U.S. citizen OR a British subject, depending on which side the parents adhered to. You CAN'T be both. This is what the framers would have understood and followed when they wrote and signed the Constitution. The Jay Treaty is a re-affirmation of this same point. The Hague Convention might have an impact on the recognition of citizenship, but it wouldn't create natural-born citizenship where it did NOT originally exist.
Way to not substantiate your untruthful claim. With a google search result? What a cowards way out of admitting you have nothing, what kind of a despicable lying coward posts a google search result to supposedly substantiate that someone said something they didn't say?
A lying despicable birther coward who prefers birthers to be uniformed idiots talking about a Travel Ban that didn't exist.
It seems a pretty obscure and tenuous argument. Time will tell if it pans out.
Obscurity doesn’t diminish the strength of an argument.
That is the fail of idiot birhters trying to make this about if he had a U.S. passport or not.
That is the fail of elected conservatives trying to carry water for the birthers but talking about a TRAVEL BAN that didn't exist.
That is the fail of THREE YEARS LATER birthers fanatically attacking anyone who dares to point out that there was no travel ban.
Birthers are nothing but fail after fail after fail.
Sorry that thus frustration has gotten you to the point where you irrationally attack anyone trying to correct the blatantly untrue things birthers post about a Travel Ban.
Do birthers have to fanatically defend even the obviously untrue things that would tend to cast doubt upon the eligibility of 0bama?
Apparently we have evidence that birthers think they need to.
Why?
Attacking me will not provide an answer - just illustrate further your major myopic problem.
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.