Will the FEC Allow Exxon To Run For POTUS

I was reading this article:

www.wnd.com...

when a staggering question came to mind.

The article was about how a New York lawyer, Abdul Hassan, has read and interpreted our constitution.

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.

The scarry thing about this comes when you consider that the U S Supreme Court has all but granted "personhood" to corporations. Once this is achieved, a company could argue that it was created,"born", in the U S and therefore meets the criteria of a natural born citizen.

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.

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.”

Just as a corporation could argue is "it's right".

Another case, Minor v. Happersett, in 1874, mentions the "natural born" issue.
"At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar," the decision states, "it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents [plural] who were its citizens [plural], became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens."

Are we readdy to live in a Corpritocracy ?

How soon will we be swearing Exxon into the White House?

A corporation has already run for office.. Long ago.

Your post reminded me of this:

murrayhillweb.com...

Just goes to show that if you are rich, persistent and politically tied you can get a court to interpret the law any way you want. If a corporate entity is ever elected to office I should hope that people all over the country stand up in outrage, but we'll probably just much more Doritos and watch primetime tv.

I personally hope this happens, as it would be more honest. At least they would have the decency of not deluding the masses that the people pick the president.

We already live in a Corptocracy....who do you think owns our candidates ?

It certainly isn't the common people that vote for them ~!

reply to post by TinkerHaus


Thanks for the link.

This is exactly my point.

Can you imagine an executive oder from President Kock Ind. which would deal with the EPA ?

Or how about a signing statement from President Boeing about a defence contract ?

Not going to happen as they won't get the minimum signatures required.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Not going to happen as they won't get the minimum signatures required.

To add, a rule says that the candidate's family cannot sign the petition and in a companies stance is their employees cannot sign it and no outside person will endorse or be a signatory to a a corporation to be a candidate for a local election.