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.
gnip
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.
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.
This is Liberalism on steroids. Constitutional suicide watch.
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.
under that argument then all laws would be discriminatory against the perpetrators.
We are sooooooo screwed......
A typically false WND headline. The FEC didn't address constitutional eligibility.
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.”
But then again, it is a WND post after all.
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).
That’s not exactly what the FEC said. In fact, what they did was punt. They denied the funds but said the act under which they operate does not give them the authority to make a further declaration. IOW, “it’s not my job.”
I am no constitutional scholar, but shouldn’t this final decision be coming from the Supreme Court rather than the FEC, an unelected board of individuals?
Just curious.
from Aaron Klein's site
http://kleinonline.wnd.com/2011/09/25/fec-south-american-born-eligible-for-u-s-president-agency-rules-there-is-no-reference-to-natural-born-or-naturalized-citizens/
In its official response earlier this month, the FEC agreed with Hassan’s logic.
The FEC’s ruling, which did not receive any news media attention, concluded that a naturalized citizen is not prohibited by the Federal Election Campaign Act from becoming a “candidate” as defined under the Act.
However, a naturalized citizen is not eligible to receive Federal matching funds under the FEC’s Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act.
Stated the FEC ruling: “In regard to the definition of ‘person,’ the Act defines that term as including ‘an individual, partnership, committee, association, corporation, labor organization, or any other organization or group of persons,’ excluding the Federal Government. There is no reference to natural born or naturalized citizens. As an individual, Mr. Hassan is a ‘person’ under the Act.”
While the FEC’s own rules now allow Hassan to run for high office, the attorney must still clear judicial hurdles before his eligibility could become official.
At issue is the Constitutional stipulation that only a “natural born” citizen can run for president.
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution stipulates presidential eligibility, requiring the nation’s elected chief to be a “natural born citizen.”
The clause states: “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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States”.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution specifically defines “citizen” but not “natural born citizen”.
A “citizen” is defined as: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are Citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
However, no definition of “natural born citizen” – which is only used in the presidential requirement clause – was provided anywhere in the Constitution, and to this day the precise meaning of the term is still being debated.
In his legal argument, Hassan contended the Constitutional eligibility clause discriminates against naturalized citizens.
He cites Supreme Court rulings that interpret the Constitution as providing “equal protection” to naturalized citizens. Other rulings cited by Hassan guarantee against the discrimination of naturalized citizens.
“The natural born requirement, that was adapted in the 1780’s at a time when slavery was also a part of the constitution,” Hassan told Klein.
Hassan added the eligibility requirement should be reinterpreted in a way that would allow naturalized citizens to run for president.