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"
No, the "treaty" is not "just" about or applicable only to land owners. In fact, the treaty is about "Amity, Commerce and Navigation" (so titled) between the two nations.
Your probably referencing Article IX, which is 1 article out of the entire treaty.
Article IX is about Alienage note affecting certain titles to land.
Leo explains how the U.S. and Great Britain can agree on Article IX:
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.
He was asked and declined to answer. You obviously didn’t read the article, because you don’t understand the facts!
Alienage note affecting —> Alienage not affecting
screaminsunshine said:
So why the Hell are the Republicans not raising hell about it?
Almost all of Congress believes the requirement to be outdated and passe.
But, instead of amending the Constitution, Congress will continue to do what it has for nearly two centuries...ignore it until the infraction goes away on its own.
They could not be farther from the truth. According to those who believe the 14th Amendment grants anyone born on U.S. soil to be natural born, they clearly neglect the fact the framing fathers would never had allowed citizens born to illegal aliens to become president. Ever.
You just keep talking your nonsense in circles. What sort of drugs are you on?
I have never debated one issue with you.
Review my posts to you. They are almost entirely insults.
That you don’t know the difference paints you as a total and complete fool, as well as a liar and fraud.
You just keep talking your nonsense in circles. What sort of drugs are you on?
Dr. Fukino, Dr. Onaka, Governors Lingle and Abercrombie plus many others could be subpoenaed and forced to bring all documents relating to the birth status of Barack Hussein Obama II.
You don’t have to admit it to me, I get that. But wouldn’t you just love to be watching THAT show? ;-)
I have never debated one issue with you.
Review my posts to you. They are almost entirely insults.
That you don’t know the difference paints you as a total and complete fool, as well as a liar and fraud.
Fact, not opinion.
You should read the excerpt from Alinky’s Rules for Radicals posted by LucyT. [Apologies if this makes any of you double-pingees; I was trying to notify any Lucy may have missed.] This describes the SP down to the finest detail. There is no doubt, anymore, what he is up to—and it STINKS!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2678076/posts?page=316#316
You're missing the obvious point. Spokesbabe Okubo showed the jpg she received from Poltifact to Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D. He had the perfect opportunity to say, "Yes, I signed this birth certificate." Obama was already a local celebrity at the time he would have signed it, so he should have known whether he signed it or not. Instead, you leave out the part of the Poltifact story that exposes Obama's COLB as fraudulent.
"When we looked at that image you guys sent us, our registrar, he thought he could see pieces of the embossed image through it."
Still, she acknowledges: "I don't know that it's possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents."
The registrar (Onaka) thought he could see "pieces" of the embossed image??? Again, he should have known if he signed it or not. This was only a year later. If he has to look for pieces of an embossed seal, he obviously didn't sign it and it's not genuine.
Also, Spokesbabe Okubo looks like a total idiot when she says, "Because they scanned the front … you wouldn’t see those things." Do we need to repost the DeCosta COLB to show how stupid that statement is??
I am certain if they thought Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D., could verify Obama's COLB, he WOULD have been asked to come testify when they had hearings over the vexatious requestor law. The Democrats in Hawaii know better than to put him under oath. Just ask Tim Adams.
I am certain if they thought Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D., could verify Obama’s COLB, he WOULD have been asked to come testify when they had hearings over the vexatious requestor law. The Democrats in Hawaii know better than to put him under oath. Just ask Tim Adams.
Have the Republicans invited Tim Adams, Janice Okubo, Chiyome Fukino, Alvin Onaka, Linda Lingle or Neil Abercrombie to testify?
He misses the point on purpose. He’s an Alinsky disruptor, and he’s trying to confuse people, obscure the issues and burn up valuable resources.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2678076/posts?page=316#316
You’re missing the obvious point. Spokesbabe Okubo showed the jpg she received from Poltifact to Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D. He had the perfect opportunity to say, “Yes, I signed this birth certificate.” Obama was already a local celebrity at the time he would have signed it, so he should have known whether he signed it or not. Instead, you leave out the part of the Poltifact story that exposes Obama’s COLB as fraudulent.
“When we looked at that image you guys sent us, our registrar, he thought he could see pieces of the embossed image through it.”
Still, she acknowledges: “I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.”
The registrar (Onaka) thought he could see “pieces” of the embossed image??? Again, he should have known if he signed it or not. This was only a year later. If he has to look for pieces of an embossed seal, he obviously didn’t sign it and it’s not genuine.
Also, Spokesbabe Okubo looks like a total idiot when she says, “Because they scanned the front … you wouldn’t see those things.” Do we need to repost the DeCosta COLB to show how stupid that statement is??
That’s my favorite of your pictures.
Alinsky:
RULE 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
I'm gonna have to sue somebody for using my intellectual property to besmirch me! I use this all the time against my opponents...IN CHESS!!
I have to admit something I may be executed for. My Chess idol is the goddamned American Capitalist Paul Morphy who lived in the 1800s in New Orleans. He challenged all players to play white (racist!!) without the king bishop pawn and the queen rook. Nobody accepted the challenge so, Morphy retired!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Morphy
He should have run for POTUS in spite of his Spanish father, Alonzo; however, he was HONORABLE and had enough brains not to try. Nowadays, we have 0h0m0llah and assorted faggots doing what they please. However, I’m glad our pres_nt POS is in and was teaching my manuals.
I adopted Morphy's attacks in chess and communism for quick checkmates and countries' destruction.
Grandmaster Alinsky, The Greatest Chess Radical of All-Time
Believe it or not, on October 31, 2008, Dr. Fukino actually stated that THIS individual had “statutory authority” to maintain and oversee Obama’s “original birth certificate,” and that this individual was THE legal custodian of Obama’s “original birth certificate” just FIVE days before the 2008 U.S. Presidential election:
Yep. SHE SAID THIS PERSON:
She sure did. And as Dr. Fukino stated, this person had it on record “in accordance with state policies and procedures.”
Not in accordance with regulations. Not in accordance with law:
Click for a larger view.
…in accordance with policies and procedures, like the policy and procedure of filing a ‘Late Birth Certificate.’
So, let’s look again at her statement. On October 31, 2008, Dr. Fukino issued the following:
Click for a larger view.
That’s right. Incredibly, just five days before the election, Obama’s “original birth certificate” was NOT “valid” or in the custody of the ‘State Registrar,’ Dr. Fukino, herself, said it was in the custody of the “Registrar.”
And if the “Registrar” had custody of the record, Alvin T. Onaka would not and could not certify a copy of it with his signature.
Excerpt from the published Vital Records Regulations. Click for a larger view.
So, now we have our answer. We know whether or not “Date Filed by Registrar” matters. It matters. A lot. Because Dr. Fukino said that the “original birth certificate” was in the “Registrar’s” custody. It was still in the procedural stage. And because someone other than the Hawaii State Registrar was custodian of Obama’s original birth certificate on October 31, 2008, we know that Obama did not have a valid original birth certificate and he possibly had an application for a ‘Late Birth Certificate’ on file that was pending acceptance by the State Registrar….or perhaps he had a record that had been rejected by the State Registrar entirely.
And if it was not in the State Registrar’s custody and under his authority, then his “original birth certificate” was not evidence to “date and place of birth and parentage.”
The same Republicans that "certified" the fraud to begin with?
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.