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

Well if wnd is being sensational they should cut it out.

I don’t have a lot of spare time today so can’t really dig more right now but I want to know when this rule was made and why, it doesn’t make sense that they would allow someone to run who is ultimately not eligible.

Adbul Hassan’s goal is to remove the natural born requirement.

From the ruling:

Mr. Hassan asked first if he would be considered a “candidate” or “person” under the Act’s definitions of those terms. The Act defines “candidate” as “an individual who seeks nomination for election, or election, to Federal office.” An individual becomes a candidate for purposes of the Act when he or she receives contributions or makes expenditures aggregating in excess of $5,000. 2 U.S.C. §431(2); 11 CFR 100.3.

The Act and FEC regulations do not address a candidate’s citizenship or any other qualifications for office. As a result, the above definition of candidate does not turn on whether the individual in question is a natural born citizen or a naturalized citizen, as long as the person meets the other criteria for the Act’s definition of candidate.

Basically, the FEC was working within the limitations forced on it by legislation - something that should be applauded in a regulatory agency.

Where the FEC by statute was allowed discretion to evaluate eligibility for office, regarding matching funds, they clearly found Hassan ineligible.

Do we really want the FEC stepping outside its legislated boundaries for our own agenda?

And if folks take a moment, there is an interesting tidbit to contemplate here. Obama refused matching funds. Ostensibly that was so he could raise more funds. However, it appears the FEC does have the statuatory power to render a decision on elibility to be president in order to receive matching funds, and will rule to the contrary if the evidence is in order. This means Obama would have had to submit evidence that he was a natural born citizen had he taken the matching-funds route.

Take what you will from that.

Gotcha - so kevkrom apporoved methods of raising money are acceptable, all others are stupid stunts. You think your bake sale got a lot of discussion nationwide on internet forums?

You know that. I know that. But there seems to be a breed of "conservatives" who don't seem to mind government over-reach... as long as that reach is in the direction they like.

Businesses aren’t a republic with a Constitution. You can ignore process all you like, though my experience is that’s ignoring process leads to chaos and lowers productivity.
You are essentially arguing that the process means nothing. But in a constitutional government the process of governing means everything, or the constitution means nothing.
You’re basically trying to defend a constitutional requirment by ignoring the constitutional process. You’re effectively wipping your rear with the Constitution when your do that.
There is a way to do what your want, but that’s way is through legislation. Call your congressman or start a patition.

I disagree with obama too, and consider him the most unconstitutional president we’ve ever had, but im not empowered to impeach him, nor am I allowed to shoot him. Both efforts by me would be unconstitutional.

According to the 1930 Census, they were both still aliens (and Mike was born in May 1930).

So yes, the FEC gave matching funds to a guy born to TWO British citizens.

Let's see the entry in the 1930 census. IIUC, the census would have been taken before Maurice was born, so technically they had time to naturalize before he was born. And again, this doesn't mean the FEC didn't accept any voluntarily submitted evidence, such as a legal birth certificate, something Obama may have opted not to take a chance on.

Why would a self-described Constitutional expert ignore the words of the principal author of the 14th Amendment, which speaks among other issues to citizenship, regarding what the Constitutional term "natural born citizen" means?

“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
--http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/

Is that highly popular self-described Constitutional Expert's expertise greater than Mr. Bingham's?

Would that expert also mock derisively the august US Representative, lawyer, prosecutor and constitutional amendment author, saying "don't bother me with that birther crap."

Sure is crazy. Not at all honest, that's for sure.

I'm sorry fellow Freeper. Your idol has a real problem with this issue. Assuming that kind of obvious inference from your handle that you are a fan of Mark Levin.

He's not alone with that problem. The great social reference work "Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds", by Charles MacKay so many years and years ago written, yet never old, tells us that even the most brilliant in a generation can share a delusion.

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.