Washington reinterprets constitutional eligibility [or not, see posts 23 and 38]

WND ^ | 9 26 2011 | wnd

[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

[tutstar]

exactly right

[drypowder]

Hassan argues it is discriminatory to not allow him to run for office

under that argument then all laws would be discriminatory against the perpetrators.

[Conscience of a Conservative]

as long as they follow the FEC's rules, they're fine by the FEC. Nothing more and nothing less

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.

[bvw]

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.

[vanilla swirl]

We are sooooooo screwed......

[SamuraiScot]

The Supreme Court has refused to hear any of the many challenges to Obama’s eligibility for the office of President. . .

Agreed. You'd think it would be the first item on the agenda before, during, or after an election. Not the last.

[kevkrom]

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.

[P-Marlowe]

This is actually a correct decision. The FEC has no business ruling on the eligibility of a person for office. They are bound by certain laws and regulations and I do not believe we should entrust a regulatory agency with making a determination as to the eligibility of a candidate to run for office.

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.

[bvw]

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.

[xzins]

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.

[mlo]

"This should be challenged and struck down. It obviously is wrong."

Given that it's written by World Nut Daily, what's obviously wrong is the article. Never assume WND is telling you the truth.

[mlo]

"Washington reinterprets constitutional eligibility"

A typically false WND headline. The FEC didn't address constitutional eligibility.

[tutstar]

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.

[Jedidah]

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.”

[truthkeeper]

But they did and someone will have to challenge this.

Good luck finding someone with standing. That seems to be a major sticking point.

[MrB]

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.

[Sherman Logan]

Would WND publish something that wasn’t 100% accurate?

[Vickery2010]

“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:

http://www.fec.gov/pages/fecrecord/october2011/ao2011-15.shtml

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.

[dirtboy]

If WND had any shame, they would pull this nonsense. I can see why they didn't link to the FEC report in question, as it completely undermines their assertions:

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.

[SoJoCo]

This is complete idiocy. The FEC is tasked with monitoring campaign finance laws only. It is NOT tasked with determining if the candidate is eligible for the office they are raising money for. What the FEC has said is that the person in question can raise money so long as they don't violate the laws governing who can contribute and how much.

But then again, it is a WND post after all.