Skip to comments.Washington reinterprets constitutional eligibility [or not, see posts 23 and 38]
Posted on 09/27/2011 5:48:51 AM PDT by tutstar
A Guyana-born naturalized American citizen fits the Federal Elections Commission's requirements to run for president, the FEC announced in a ruling.
The case involves New York lawyer Abdul Hassan, who was born in the South American country in 1974. Hassan argues it is discriminatory to not allow him to run for office.
Responding to criticism of possible dual-loyalty issues, Hassan said in a radio interview that a person's place of birth should not determine his patriotism or presidential eligibility.
"I am an attorney," he said. "When I undertake the representation of a client, I have to act in the best interests of my client," Hassan stated on "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio" on New York's WABC Radio.
Read more: Washington reinterprets constitutional eligibility http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=348933#ixzz1Z9xy0pso
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Washington reinterprets constitutional eligibility FEC rules naturalized citizens are same as 'natural born' in presidential votes
I heard the interview Sunday afternoon and was waiting for an article.
Bastardizing the Constitution, one move at a time, imho.
We are in a heap of .....
This should be challenged and struck down. It obviously is wrong.
A naturalized citizen is not eligible for the presidency. A naturalized person can never be a natural born person. The entire naturalization process is all about conferring citizenship on one who was not born a citizen.
Most certainly! Yet when did the FEC have authority to rule like this? Why now? Are they trying to eliminate barriers to Barry in 2012?
Puzzle pieces coming together? Fast and Furious guns went to gangs in CHICAGO. The civilian police force being armed? The Bama told them to get their marching shoes on. Maxine Waters and other black leaders getting upset with the 0 now. He has to court the hispanics, they want the law and constitution subverted to keep them here. Things may get ugly!
And we have been since 2008.
I’m sick of the mere lip service given the Constitution by Justice Thomas, Justice Scalia, the Federalist Society, and every other major “think tank”. They have no blood, no heart that pumps it, just sink water and some kind of cheap aquarium pump and oxygenator. There’s no other explanation for it.
I agree, F*n he and two stars
I want all these asshats to gimme moneeee to run and win as pressident, bugger, is dis spelt almost write...
becasue I is a lawyer..... the WORLDS MOST CORRUPT PROFESSION with ZERO MORAL BOUNDARIES>
shrugs, we love you baby
The FEC does not have the authority to do this. This ruling has no legal basis.
This is worthless...has no authority to make this kind of change.
I thought this was about the FEC.
They don't, and that's actually the point of the FEC's decision. Basically, the FEC has said that determination of eligibility is beyond their purview, and that their authorization only goes as far as enforcing election law as written. Therefore, regardless of whether or not any particular candidate is actually eligible, as long as they follow the FEC's rules, they're fine by the FEC. Nothing more and nothing less.
Just ask the all-knowing Pelosi.
This is Liberalism on steroids. Constitutional suicide watch.
The Supreme Court has refused to hear any of the many challenges to Obama’s eligibility for the office of President, yet left the issue to hang like a rotting corpse in the public square of a tyranny where all are afraid to touch it. Thus we get absolute perversions like the FEC ruling.
Nor has ONE so-called esteemed and serious “think tank” commented on the issue.
It is a tyranny of fear combined with rule by the bloodless.
Then they are an unConstitutional entity and should be abolished.
It is beyond the purview of none but those who are lawless. If that was their ruling they should all resign. Disband the FEC.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see a link to that ruling in the WND article. I would think such would exist.
So until I see such, I am taking this with a very large grain of salt.
You guys are both missing the point — for a change, we have a government agency who made the simple determination that they don’t have the authority to make a decision. By the laws and regulations as written, they have to allow anyone who follows the proper guidelines to file for and run as a candidate. They simply do not have the authority to deny someone on the basis of eligibility, because Congress has not given them the power to do so.
The main problem with the whole eligibility issue is that there is a Constitutional requirement, but no defined mechanism for enforcing it. Since Congress is the ultimate judge of Presidential elections, it is therefore their responsibility to provide for the enforcement of that requirement. If they do not delegate such authority by law to an agency like the FEC, the FEC would be violating the law and the Constitution by taking the responsibility onto themselves.
under that argument then all laws would be discriminatory against the perpetrators.
Then they are an unConstitutional entity and should be abolished.
I disagree - all the FEC does is enforce the campaign laws (in particular the Federal Election Campaign Act) as written. In this case, the FEC determined that there is nothing in the FECA that prohibits naturalized citizens from running for President, because (in part) "the Act's definition of 'candidate' applies to those who seek nomination for election or election to Federal office rather than htose eligible to be nominated or elected to, or to serve in Federal office."
All the FEC did here was say that this guy can run and can raise campaign contributions. They did not say that he was Constitutionally eligible; to the contrary, the FEC determined that this guy is not eligible for matching funds, precisely because he is not Constitutionally eligible to be President.
Most assuredly I did NOT miss that point, that is the very point I strongly protest. The law is clear. Congress took an oath to that Constitution, there was no need for Congress to specify EVERYTHING that must be done, regulators can require, for example, names of states and jurisdictions to be properly spelled in applications and key documents. Yet Congress doesn’t specifically mandate that.
We are sooooooo screwed......
Agreed. You'd think it would be the first item on the agenda before, during, or after an election. Not the last.
My point is that I applaud the FEC for staying within the bounds of what they are legally authorized to do and not do. I agree that Congress should be excoriated for not plugging the gaping hole in the eligibility issue that Obama’s case has exposed.
That is, regardless of whether you believe Obama is eligible or not, the whole issue has certain pointed out that there is no enforcement of that Constitutional requirement, and Congress, as ultimate judge of elections, is negligent for not fixing that.
Clearly this guy can "run" for the Presidency. But he is not eligible to hold the office if elected. But that is for the Congress, the Electoral College and the courts to determine. There is always the possibility that if he were elected, the Constitution could be amended to allow for Naturalized Citizens (like Obama) to be president between the time he is elected and the time he is sworn in. I'd say the odds are about the same for him getting elected as they are for the Constitution being changed in the 2 months between November and January.
You applaud the worst then, for that kind of high regard of such narrowed action kept the trains running in Nazi Germany, no matter what their cargo.
It was careless behavior then, deadly careless. Today it is not yet as deadly, but still among the worst forms of dereliction of duty. The men and women of the FEC are equally subordinate to the Constitution as any, no matter what direction Congress wills them in a time.
However, the FEC “was” ruling on his eligibility based on current election law.
My point is simply this: they are wasting everyone’s time by ignoring the constitution to which that election law must adhere.
Given that it's written by World Nut Daily, what's obviously wrong is the article. Never assume WND is telling you the truth.
A typically false WND headline. The FEC didn't address constitutional eligibility.
But they did and someone will have to challenge this. The government has turned into a sign it into law tyranny. the only thing missing is the seal from Caesar’s ring.
Is it possible that this strange case might result in a long-needed SCOTUS ruling?
So the FEC lets this guy on the ballot, someone files suit to keep him off on constitutional grounds, and it goes to court.
Isn’t that a good thing?
We need that “someone.”
Good luck finding someone with standing. That seems to be a major sticking point.
This goes along with the leftist mindset, hand-in-glove.
Leftists believe that their elite, alive now, know far better about any contemporary issue than anyone who lived in the past.
They believe that this superior knowledge trumps any written rule or law.
Would WND publish something that wasn’t 100% accurate?
“All the FEC did here was say that this guy can run and can raise campaign contributions. They did not say that he was Constitutionally eligible; to the contrary, the FEC determined that this guy is not eligible for matching funds, precisely because he is not Constitutionally eligible to be President.”
Exactly. Here is the FEC page on the advisory opinion:
And the two questions you point out are exactly the questions the FEC lays out and answers. Can a naturalized citizen legally collect contributions for a Presidential campaign? Yes. Can a naturalized citizen qualify for matching funds under the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act? No, because the Act’s provisions require that matching funds only be paid to eligible candidates.
In other words, WND has its headline exactly backwards. Had they bothered to actually read the FEC opinion, they’d see that the FEC explicitly DID say that the Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen.
Thus, because Mr. Hassan has clearly stated that he is a naturalized citizen and not a natural born citizen under the Constitutional requirement for holding the office of President, the Commission concluded that Mr. Hassan is not eligible to receive matching funds.
Basically, the FEC from what I can see, was very well-behaved in this ruling, clearly stating where they had no discretion under the law and also acting where they did to declare Hassan ineligible.
WND is crap journalism, pure and simple. They exist to generate hype and hot air.
But then again, it is a WND post after all.
WND is full of crap - there is a reason they didn't link to the memo in their article, as it completely undermines their assertions.
This is why, long ago, I put WND at the same veracity level as supermarket tabloids. Heck, even the National Equirer does better.
Godwin's Law applied at post #29.
On the contrary, I am always happy to see an arm of the government take the proper care and respect that they do not exceed their authority as delegated to them by the proper Constitutional bodies. I don't want every two-bit bureaucrat substituting his or her opinion on Constitutionality over the laws as passed by Congress -- if Congress is wrong, there are more proper ways to fix that.
Unless I’m confused naturalized citizens have run for President before. In one of the recent Democratic campaigns I believe one was allowed to show up for the Democratic debates.
He was, of course, one of the minor candidates, sort of like Mr. Cain before last week.
We are all subordinate to the Construction, but we don’t all have the same powers of enforcement. Congress doesn’t have the powers of the president, and here doesn’t have the powers of the SCOTUS.
Do you really want a regulatory agency determining who can, run?
“It is a tyranny of fear combined with rule by the bloodless.”
Couldn’t agree more.
The problem is, NOBODY has the job of determining eligibility
I googled around a little, and the amount of misinformation on this whole topic is astonishing.
Almost every article starts with a statement along the lines of, “naturalized citizens have the rights of every other American citizen except they cannot run for President.”
This is factually incorrect. Anybody, including Arnold Schwarzenegger, Justin Bieber and Vladimir Putin, can run for President, if that means going around and asking people to vote for them. There is no law and can be no law against running. Freedom of speech and all that.
The person running, as the FEC said in this case, would have to follow the laws with regard to campaign finance where they apply, just as would any other candidate.
A non-eligible person can run. He/she just can’t serve if elected, which isn’t particularly likely, of course.
Though quite a few believe we elected an ineligible candidate last time. (I’m not among them, BTW).
Bingo. The 800 pound gorilla in the kitchen.
The Founders intended for the President to be elected in truth rather than form by the Electoral College, which would of course make its members responsible for ensuring eligibility.
Since the EC quickly became only a rubber stamp, the mechanism for determining eligibility defaulted in practice to the voters, who in the last election just weren't interested.
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.