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

https://i0.wp.com/www.saycampuslife.com/images/john-jay.jpg

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 – 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 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

Old Federal Building
3002 Colby Avenue, Suite 306
Everett, Washington 98201

36 Responses to “The Jay Treaty Strongly Indicates That Obama Is Not Eligible To Be President.”

  1. naturalborncitizen Says:

    Please excuse my not having updated comments. I have been very busy researching the issue of this report. Please feel free to comment. I will catch up as fas as I can. Leo

  2. DixHistory Says:

    I loved reading this.
    Nice work Leo!

    DixHistory

  3. It has been one of my bones of contention when expressing the irrationality of the WKA Opinion that the Burlingame Treaty, a labor and trade agreement with China which the Ark parents were ‘legally admitted’ under, specifically proscribed the ‘naturalization’ of any persons covered under the Treaty in its Article VI.

    The results of the WKA Opinion is plain to see and has devolved to a point where there is no longer needs for ‘naturalization laws’ given that anyone that can make it to our shores are vested with a ‘presumed legality’.

    ed. WKA is an awful decision, written by Gray who was appointed by notorious usurper Arthur.-leo

  4. TexasVetgal Says:

    1. Many Americans through exhaustive research have discovered numerous crimes against our constitution and the American people by our elected officials, Most dramatically stated and revealed by Gov.Neil Abercrombie (Hawaii) That there is no Birth Record on file for Barack Hussein Obama, with that revelation, “in fact”, we have a usurper acting as POTUS,
    “Unqualified to serve as President”. It is believed and now widely known, that, Obama fails constitutional muster on atleast 2 counts. The original assertion that indeed Obama was born in Kenya, becomes almost certain.
    (http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/03/26/who-is-barack-obama/comment-page-1/#comment-6687)
    See Latest video interview with Dr. Jerome Corsi
    http://floydreports.com/video-the-latest-on-wheres-the-birth-certificate/?utm_source=Floyd+Reports&utm_campaign=f0ca9cfe12FR_02_27_20112_27_2011&utm_medium=email
    There also seems to have been a conspiracy to fraud the electorate by the
    certification process in which Mr. Soetoro/Obama (not sure what his LEGAL name is) used a certification document prior to the elections that had been
    intentionally and fraudulently altered by eliminating the statement:
    –(and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to
    serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution:)–.
    This indicates a conspiracy involving Ex-Speaker Pelosi and others who have knowingly broken our laws, thereby nullifying open and free elections, as well as other violations of their own oaths of office. Additionally, Mr Obama/Soetoro seems to have recieved a “Fulbright Scholarship” reserved for foreign students. As well as fraudulent Social Security numbers in atleast as much, use of multiple numbers? I always thought these were
    crimes of fraud, perhaps i was wrong.
    It is also widely known that Obama’s/Soetoro’s Passport information from 1981 indicates he, at one time must have had “DUAL CITIZENSHIP” (this fact alone disqualifies Mr Obama/Soetoro from the Presidency) as well as other fraudulent information. Are these not violations and treasonous acts against our laws and Constitution at the higest levels?
    A thorough investigation of these facts/theories should be undertaken immediately. But dont bother trying to get Eric Holder and the DOJ, Congress, Senate, or the SCOTUS to help you in this matter as they have all previously shown to be “IN-THE-TANK” for Mr. Soetoro/Obama and have proven they are willing to violate other laws necessary to prevent
    this issue from being addressed both politically and legally.
    Those involved in this fraud and usurpation of powers against the People of the United States of America and our Constitution SHOULD NOT GO UNCHALLENGED. I believe Gov Abercrombie, that no Birth Certificate exists, I also believe you will find many documents freely available as well as thru FOIA requests that support the charge of treason against this Usurper acting as President.
    I’m sure most of our elected officials already know just WHO/WHAT Barack Obama/Barry Soetoro really is, but as of yet have failed to act ? Is FRAUD and the potential Usurpation of power of the Presidency of the United States of America not a worthy undertaking for ANY of our elected leaders? Lest they be reminded of the blood sacrifice of Hundreds of Thousands of our Soldiers who have given their lives and give still this day for our Nation, our Values and our Constitution . That they pledge their lives to our Constitution is of no small matter indeed.
    A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, expect our representatives to uphold THEIR OWN OATHS and investigate with unbiased zeal to seek the truth. –or perhaps, maybe they wont bother, since no real harm has been done? with exception to the integrity of our legal system, the laws that govern our Country. The honesty, integrity and eligibility to hold such office by our elected officials, and our most fundamental rights as defined in our Constitution. Or perhaps the only avenue left to American citizens is not unlike what we have been seeing in the Middle East, for if we are NOT a Nation of Laws, then just WHAT are we?
    “The two enemies of the people are criminals and the government. So let us tie the second down with chains of the Constitution so that the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”
    -Thomas Jefferson

  5. thinkwell Says:

    Leo,

    Thank you for delving into this topic. This particular puzzler has been bothering me for some time. I am eagerly looking forward to your concluding remarks.🙂

    I know the standard definition of natural born Citizen requires both “blood and dirt” (born to then US citizen parents within the borders of the USA). Of course, the parents may be citizens of any type, including brand-spanking-newly naturalized.

    This is because, as a condition of naturalization, the parents were required to swear an oath of sole allegiance to the USA, specifically renouncing any prior allegiances or citizenship. Thus, just as with natural born Citizens, their expressed fealty and loyalty lies exclusively with the USA, regardless of whatever claims any other country may continue to make. This ensures that the child is raised in an atmosphere of exclusive loyalty and dedication to the USA such that the child’s own exclusive loyalty will then flow naturally from this condition.

    This is how the theory goes anyway, yet I know a British born woman who naturalized in the USA as a child and who claims to still hold and maintain a British passport. The US does not recognize her dual citizenship, yet she claims that GB does. I recall that she said that she must be careful not to enter the USA under her British passport lest it be confiscated, yet she may use it freely elsewhere. Assuming her claims are true and her actions are true to her claims, then this clearly indicates that her loyalties do not lie solely with the USA and are divided to this day.

    To my way of thinking her actions are counter to her oath (which I assume she was required to take upon reaching the age of majority) and should result in forfeiture of her citizenship. But I wonder if, at least in the case of Great Britain, we may have treaties in place that prevent this and allow her to be a US citizen with openly expressed divided allegiances that even may be officially recognized while she is in residence within British territory. Her husband is a natural born American, but if instead, he were a naturalized citizen exactly like her, think of the possible implications to the natural allegiance of their children.

    Say that due to business reasons they maintained a second home in England and they actually spent more time living in GB than in the USA. Assume that their children were born in the USA, yet Britain considered both the parents still to be British citizens. Would Britain also lay a claim to their natural born American citizen children? Hopefully this is not possible. I think situations like this is why many countries completely disallow any form of dual citizenship.

    Technically, the children of such a hypothetical situation may be considered to be natural born Citizen Americans, but I don’t see how they could meet the spirit of the Founder’s intentions with regard to safeguarding the Presidency to only those with natural sole native allegiance. Certainly, if after obtaining the age of majority, if such children were ever to obtain a foreign passport, that act alone should be considered forfeiture of any claim to natural born status.

    PS: When I was a child in Catechism class, the nuns always dreaded my obnoxious (but sincere) “what-if” questions of faith.🙂 Anyway, looking forward to your insight.

  6. Leo:

    The following is information I included in a comment to one of your earlier blog posts. It seems to me to be relevant to this post, so please consider.

    Welcome back, BTW!

    Thanks:

    Publius

    ___________________________

    John Jay was not the only one of our founding fathers who used the term ‘natural born citizen’ in his writings prior to that term’s inclusion in A2S1C5 of the Constitution.

    John Adams used it as early as 1783. (See “The Adams Papers: Papers of John Adams,” volume 14, October 1782 – May 1783, copyright 2008 by the Massachusetts Historical Society, published by the Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Editors: Gregg L. Lint, C. James Taylor, Hobson Woodward, Margaret A. Hogan, Mary T. Claffey, Sara B. Sikes, and Judith S. Graham, ISBN 0674026071, 9780674026070, length 582 pages.)

    The passage of interest of this volume of John Adams’ writings begins on page 449, and I quote:

    “Draft Articles to Supplement the Preliminary Anglo-American Peace Treaty [ca. 27 April 1783] agreed upon by and between David Hartley Esquire, Minister Plenipotentiary of his Britannic Majesty

    “for & in behalf of his Said Majesty on the one Part, and J.A. [John Adams], B.F. [Benjamin Franklin], J.J. [John Jay] and H.L. [Henry Laurens], Ministeres Plenipotentiary of the United States of America for treating of Peace with the Minister Plenipotentiary of his Said Majesty, on their behalf, on the other Part,

    “in Addition to those Articles agreed upon, on the 30th day of November 1782 by and between Richard Oswals Esq. the Commissioner of his Britannic Majesty for treating of peace with the Commissioners of the United States of America, in behalf of his said Majesty, on the one Part, and the said J.A., B.F., J.J. and H.L., four of the Commissioners of the Said States for treating of Peace, with the Commissioner of his Said Majesty, on their Behalf, on the other Part.

    “1. The Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain Shall enjoy in all and every of the United States, all of the Rights Liberties Priviledges and Immunities and be Subject to the Duties and Allegience of natural born Citizens of the Said States – and on the other Hand, all Citizens of the Said United States shall enjoy in all and every of the Dominions of the Crown of Great Britain, all the Rights, Liberties Privileges, and Immunities and be subject to the Duties and Allegience of natural born Subjects of that Crown, excepting Such Individuals of either Nation as the legislature of the other shall judge fit to except.”

    The fact of Adams’ use in 1783 of the term “natural born citizens of the Said States” in official diplomatic correspondence on behalf of multiple high-ranking colleagues appears to foreclose the possibility that he, John Jay, Franklin, or Laurens were in any way confused as to what the term meant.

    I do not take from the above passage that Adams viewed U.S. natural born citizens to be in any way equivalent to or the same as British natural born subjects in terms of how those terms are defined. Rather, I believe he was simply trying to articulate that which was the highest form of citizenship on both sides in order that his counterpart on the British side did not object to the perception of unbalanced treatment of British subjects at the hands of U.S. officials. It was particularly interesting to me to find an example of someone referring to “natural born citizens” of the United States in the present tense, prior to the enactment of the U.S. Constitution.
    _______________________

  7. Vincent Jappi Says:

    What I still haven’t found is the legl implications of Soetoro possibly being found to be the natural son of a US citizen.
    On the supposition that his legal father was indeed the Kenyan Barack Obama Sr, even if we have no evidence of that either, which father would count in the determination of eligibility?

  8. elspeth Says:

    You rock, Leo. We’re patient people. No worries…besides the obvious.

  9. If he has been Lying and trying to cover up the fact he forged documents, lied then spent a lot of money to hide his past he must be tried for treason and if found guilty and I’m sure he will be given the Maxium set forth by law.
    And I believe at a time of war its death. [ And we are at war.]
    We must not stand down and be make a fools out of in Americia.
    Also any one helping him must face charges.
    My .o2 worth for the day.

  10. That last post is great!

  11. BillCutting Says:

    Great article!
    Have you been following the Bradley Manning case?
    He was also born a British Subject.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/01/bradley-manning-uk-citizen

    ed. Interesting. Manning, dual national… being pursued by State as a traitor a traitor. Without commenting on his situation or wikileaks in general, it just doesn’t surprise me that this guy was a dual national of US and United Kingdom. – leo

  12. Thank you, Leo!

    Is there any way that lawsuits can proceed up the legal chain to SCOTUS according to what you are saying here? What is the status of the other lawsuits that you and Stephen Pidgeon are working on? I know that one is on appeal.

    I appreciate the work you have done and are continuing to done.

    Hugh

  13. I have just received and email from my Father in law and it looks real.
    Shows the Presidents birth cert that says he was born in Kenya. How do I forward it to you to see if it is true
    TR Lamb
    Bethesda Maryland

  14. God bless you Leo. History is made up of brilliant patriots who were not only educated, but knew how to apply that education. You sir, are one of those.

    I hope and PRAY that those involved with the Hollister case are reading this information. They have a new conference scheduled, and I sincerely hope that this information is included in the case material. Time is short, the conference is the 14th.

    Thank you Leo.

  15. MichaelN Says:

    Lord Coke stated the following in his report of Calvin’s case:-

    That a ‘natural born subject’ was such ‘by nature and birthright’.

    That a ‘natural born subject’ was such ‘by procreation and birthright’

    TWO essential qualities, not one.

    That aliens visiting England in friendship are ‘subjects’.

    That one was excluded from being a ‘natural born subject’ if the parent father was not a ‘subject’, such that the child was no subject, because the child was not ‘born under the ligeance of a subject’.

    This clearly means that sanguinis was one of TWO essential qualities required to be met for one to be a ‘natural born subject’.

    Interesting how Chief Justice Horace Gray in the Wong Kim Ark case, cited Calvin’s case, danced around ‘natural born’ and OMITTED to make ANY mention of these most important statements by Lord Coke, leaving it to be construed that soli was the only quality for ‘natural born’, when in fact this notion of soli only is INCORRECT.

    Sanguinis IS ESSENTIAL in making a ‘natural born’.

    ed. Good point. Leo

  16. The war of 1812 did not settle the matter of subjects who chose to be US citizens. (The Brits were involved with fighting Napoleon, needed people, and obtained them however they could.) Expatriation of a British subject was not recognized by Great Britain until 1870. Britain not only claimed its US citizen subjects, but also their sons. In Britain’s eyes, CAA was born a British subject no matter where he was born or the citizenship status of his father.

  17. constitutionallyspeaking Says:

    I know exactly where you are going with this. In the “Federalist Papers”, especially # 18-22 they discuss invasions and foreign influences that were the ultimate destruction of former republic confederacies and why the current “Articles of Confederation” that was in place was completely inefficient to sustain the new Republic of the United States. The number of citizenship & naturalization laws were as vast as the number of new sovereign States.

    The only laws that could ever bring them all together cohesively without trampling the rights of the States was the “law of nations”. By using these laws, the framers were able to bring cohesiveness in law among all the States while protecting the sovereignty of each individual State who joined the Federal Republic. There had to be laws that were fitting to sovereign States as that IS where the sovereignty of the nation lies. In the States & the people of those States. The laws of the Federal govt needed to follow a universal/international law because they were dealing with sovereign nation States. If they hadn’t, the US Constituton would have never been ratified. One only has to go back to the Declarations of Independence to find this out. It wasn’t one decalration that was made. Each State sent their own formal declaration of indepedence to England prior to the one signed by all the states & formalized on July 4, 1776. The 1776 was the formal one that bound all 13 colonies together as a Federal Republic, standing beside each other to protect each others sovereignty. At that time, they were truely independent, sovereign nation States with completely independent governments. Each State was a sovereign Republic in its own right upon their individual delcaration of independence from Great Britain.

    The US Constitution is basically a Treaty between the all the sovereign States and the citizens of those States. They are the laws that have been common to all nations & States since the dawn of time. It is why it is called the “Supreme Law of the Land”.

    The July 4, 1776 Declaration of Indepence was the 1st treaty between the States that “United” them, the Articles of Confederation the 2nd & the US Constitution was the 3rd. And that is why “Treaties” are “Supreme Law”. The US Constitution is a “Treaty” between the States. And where citizenship is concerned, the ONLY universal element common to ALL Nations & States is “jus sanguinis” combined with “jus soli”.

    Born in the country, of parents who are citizens. In the eyes of our Lord God, it mattered not where one was birthed. But as Nations grew & governments formed civil/local laws applied and as Vattel put it:

    The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens…I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country…

    the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say “of itself,” for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also

    Now, I remind all that Vattel also reminded all that:

    For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory

    And here we find the key to McCain’s eligibility & the definition of “subject to the jusrisdiction thereof” which is found in the 14th amendment.

    “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them”

    Exodus 20:3 You shall have no other gods before (besides) me

    Matthew 6:24 & Luke 16:13 No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon

  18. Messenger Says:

    Good find!Zowie,it is clear that as time goes on that more and more history will be uncovered and revealed to preserve the the dignity,honor,intellect,and integrity of our Founding Fathers that chose their words very carefully and recorded them in our founding documents and writings,be it the Declaration of Independance,the Preamble to and the Constitution for[some say “of”]the United State of America[or the 1787 version in all caps],the Articles of Confedration.The Federalist Papers,The Anti-Federalist Papers,and so on and so forth.Nice to see more get into the historical record,albeit in the blogosphere,and not the Congressional Record.No sweat on comments,just nice to see you around here again.

  19. There is also the “grandfather” clause in the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

    This clause qualifies those for president who would otherwise be disqualified by not being natural born citizens. Those who were born British subjects prior to the ratifcation of the Constitution were made eligible. (I have seen arguments that the date of the Declaration of Independence is the actual demarcation date.)

    By knowing what class of citizens the Foundiing Fathers consciously included, we know what class of citizens they intended to exclude.

  20. Great article. Thank you. Please contact me. I need your assistance.

  21. Leo, please check out my latest court filing.

  22. It is good to hear from you again. I look forward to everything you have to say. Many thank.

  23. If two citizen parents were not required for ‘Natural Born Citizen’ status then there is no possible logical reason for the adoption clause in Article 2 Section 1. All the founders were charter citizens with non-citizen parents because the country did not exist when their parents gave birth to them. And there were many citizens at that time who were born on U.S. soil but not to citizen parents. The founders knew it would take a generation to produce the first ‘Natural Born Citizen’ born on U.S. soil from parents who were citizens and free from any direct foreign birthright allegiances. The founders needed to include the charter citizens in order to have Presidential candidates (themselves) until a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ could be available for candidacy. Obama’s birth certificate is relevant only if it confirms that Barack Obama Sr. was his father he claims in his book and on his website. Barack Obama Sr. was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Obama’s birth.

  24. opey606 Says:

    It’s always a genuine pleasure to encounter more blog posts by you, Leo.

    I’ve been a reader since Sept/Oct 2008. I don’t think you really comprehend the difference you have made in the Liberty Movement.

    “… 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.””

    From what I understand so far, Article IX of the Jay Treaty provides for the regarding of individuals and their offspring as “native” to the foreign country (U.S. or G.B.) but only in the instance of there being property owned in the other country.

    Question:

    1) I wouldn’t expect that this treaty only pertains to the time of the treaty’s inditing, or is the Treaty in fact pertaining *only* to the families holding property at that time and *their* descendants? Can, today, any American citizen, and for the sake of argument, one who is only so through Naturalization, for instance, travel to G.B. and purchase land, and then be therefore regarded as “native” to G.B. (for purposes/issues surrounding the property)? Would the case be any different were the traveler and land-purchaser a ‘native-born’ U.S. citizen? … and then, of course, the next query, … were he a ‘natural-born’ U.S. citizen?

    … and then what about the other way around? … a British traveler/purchaser *today* within the U.S?

    2) When Article IX refers to the word, “native” (and of course you’ve made it clear that the definition of such terms as this must be in consonance with the “Law of Nations”), are we to understand that the treaty is *NOT* making reference to the very-much differentiated category, “natural-born”, but rather *only* to the concept of being conferred rights as one merely *having been born* in the other country (for purposes/issues surrounding the property)?

    ed. wait for part 2, thanks. But clues are in the title of the treaty. – leo

  25. Jack Angelo Territo Says:

    The Democrat Congress should be held liabel and censured for not Vetting Comrade Obama and his 40 ZSARS?

  26. Jack Angelo Territo Says:

    iTS STRANGE ,but the Japanese ,which were given our Constitution, follow it better than Americans do?

  27. So …. what is going to be done about this. Or, do we still have jerks who, like the Bush family criminals, refuse to let their thoughts be clouded by facts. Is anyone ACTUALLY starting legal action or is all of this just rhetoric blowing in the wind? I am hoping there are some real patriots that are doing something to bring all of the criminals, past and present, to justice for their crimes against the constitution and the people of the United States of America. George Washington and the rest of the founding fathers of this once great nation have got to be turning over and over in their graves about all of this. If there is any hair left on the head of their corpses, thay must be pulling the few strands left out by now.

  28. gorefan Says:

    When John Jay wrote his letter to Washington (July 25th, 1787) suggesting that the CIC be a “natural born Citizen”. Who specifically was he referring to? The adult citizens who were born in the the colonies before July, 1776?

  29. Please have the US House of Rep. ask Obama for his birth certificate so
    that “we the people” (all 300 million of us) can know. We are not fools. Obama ran for the office, Obama took an oth in front of the Chief Justice and controls the worlds largest economy and the the worlds largest military. How about clearing up a few facts for the world.

  30. People should know that Philip Berg, Esq of Lafayette Hill, Pa has done
    work and knows that Obama’s mother gave up her American Citizenship.
    The House Speaker is from Ohio and Philip Berg, Esq is from Pa. The House Speaker should listen to Attorney Berg and demand a hearing ASAP

    ed. that would have no effect on whether Obama is nbc. See perkins v elg. – leo

  31. O COOL!!! My favorite teacher is back!! 🙂

  32. Why doesn’t John B. speaker of the House have a hearing to demand that
    Obama show his Birth Certificate and satisfy “We the people” ? Such an
    action would show that the House means well and not hidding behind nbc
    perkins v elg, expecting us to understand his limits to thought .

  33. victor Says:

    March 12, 2011 at 7:27 PM
    …Why doesn’t John B. speaker of the House have a hearing to demand…

    It is because of the “fact” that there is “no” acknowledged “legal” definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen. <Period

    You can not ask anyone to conform to a "standard" which is not "legally" defined. It is somewhat safe to conclude the the '0' was born prior to 1973 and although his biographical record displays periods of uncertainties there appears to be a record of 14 yrs residency established.

    Both of those A2S1C5 requirements can be determined as matters of factual findings.

    That is "not" the case when it comes to determining if he, or anyone else, is or is not a "Constitutional" natural born Citizen.

    There is "no" acknowledged "legal" definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen. <Period

  34. To:
    Ben Quayle

    Only 58% of Americans have a belief that Barack Obama was born in the United States. 23% believe he was not born in US and 20% are not sure (probably based on the lack of evidence).

    Besides the be-littled concerned US citizens called “birthers”, Governor Neil Abercrombie (D) HI and Pro-Obama host of MSNBC Chris Mathews are asking for Obama’s long form birth certificate. Mathew’s says if it exists why not make it available? Many Americans are still asking the exact same question. Why not make it available?

    The court’s have relinquished responsibililty in this matter of eligibility to you members of congress. It is now time for Congressional hearings to determine Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as president.

    Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin’s honor, career and retirement have been obliterated because he asked for the same information. He is sworn to protect the constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic and he has been court martialed. What a disgrace. You must change this. Make the long form available and reverse the sentence of LTC Terry Lakin.

    All U.S. citizens and military personnel must see the Hawaii Long form birth certificate and Congressional hearings into Barack Obama’s eligibility need to begin immediately to force the availability of this key document.

    Anthem , AZ

  35. “[C]urrently, as of the date and time of this Notice, there is no ‘legally acknowledged definition’ of the Constitutional idiom of ‘natural born Citizen’ as found in the Executive qualification Clause at Article II Section I Clause V of the Constitution of the United States, not in any specific words within the Constitution, not in any promulgated Legislation Codified to Statutes, not in any of the various Amendments to the Constitution, not in any Declaratory Statement and/or Judgement emanating from any level of the Constitutionally authorized Judiciary, notwithstanding the ‘Act to make uniform the laws of naturalization’ of the 1st Congress of 1790, repealed by the 3rd Congress of 1795 and within various dicta found in the various Federal Court Opinions.”

    Excerpt; pending Motion for Notice of Adjudicative Fact; USCA 10th 11-9501

    The Congress does not have the ability to determine the definition of the “legally” undefined Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen and by extension has no basis or ability to arrive at a conclusion of who is or is not in conformity with the Constitutional prerequisite imperative.

    The only means at the Congress’ disposal to affect the Constitutional idiom that resides in the Executive Articles is to propose an Amendment.

    But that presents another dilemma in that it would be found difficult to propose an ‘Amended” definition without the “Original” definition being known.

    I use the ‘horse and cart’ analogy to express why nothing seems to move on this issue and every attempt is thwarted by some existing Rule of Law or Constitutional doctrine.

    A ‘natural born Citizen’, individually and collectively, is/are recognized by the Constitution but the ‘legal loop-hole’ of the lack of words of definition within the Constitution has been exploited to allow “Whatever” to suffice as a ‘public policy’ definition.

    The “Question” as to the “legal” Constitutional definition of the idiom must be presented to the SCOTUS in a Bona Fide Petition asking only in terms insofar as Citizenship is concerned, leaving the “transient Political aspects” to the concerns of the Political process.

    IMO.

  36. Paul Smith Says:

    I’ve done a lot of study on this issue as has everyone on this blog but this is just mind blowing! Barry himself provided the proof that he is ineligible to be the POTUS and until now I totally missed it! How long will we allow this to go on?

    “TRUMP” THIS! – Barack Obama is NOT Constitutionally Eligible to be POTUS — Irrefutable
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJlHfTEvlCY&feature=player_embedded (5min 41sec)

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: