Shouldn’t the FEC be verifying that to begin with?
I mean, wouldn’t they tell him he couldn’t run when he filed? Am I just taking crazy pills?
What we learned in the case of Obama is that the FEC relies on the parties to vet and certify the candidates.
I don’t think so.
Here’s what the Constitution says-
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;”
It doesn’t say anything about eligibility with regard to running for the nomination of a party, nor does it say anything about eligibility while running for president.
It only seems to reference eligibility to the Office of President, which to me means the foul occurs once he wins the election, but up until such time as he wins, he has done nothing that couldn’t warrant a suit.
In short, there doesn’t seem to be anything that says Americans can’t nominate someone who is ineligible or even elect someone who is ineligible, but that an ineligible person cannot assume the Office of President.
Which makes me think that he could go all the way, win, and then be disqualified by a suit, and that is not something that I find appealing to be perfectly honest.
I’m not sure they have the authority to rule on what a NBC is or isn’t. It’s rarely been an issue that has required clarification. That it has been an issue for three elections in a row now is a sign of the times and evidences the need for article II, section 1, paragraph 5 in 2016 just as much as in 1787.
I mean, wouldn’t they tell him he couldn’t run when he filed?The Constitution doesn't say anything about the requirements to run.
No, no, a thousand times no.
Choice of Electors for President of the United States are the sovereign and sole responsibility of the 50 State Legislatures (and Congress, which gave itself 3 electors in 1960).
The Federal government, and any "Federal commission", are the LAST people who have, or who should have, anything to do with the choice of a President.