Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-28-2011, 12:40 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,878,374 times
Reputation: 14345

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
yes and it states""""The FEC’s ruling, concluded that a naturalized citizen is not prohibited by the Federal Election Campaign Act from becoming a “candidate” as defined under the act."""""


so the ORIGINAL QUESTION (and my follow up ) still stand
What does the Federal Election Campaign Act say, exactly? After all, the FEC isn't interpreting the Constitution here, they are interpreting the Federal Election Campaign Act. Right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-28-2011, 12:42 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,077,572 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD View Post
It should be settled before they even reach the FEC don't ya think?
What should be settled?

If the question is, can he be president of the United States, then it was settled before reaching the FEC. But even if it wasn't, the FEC can't settle it. Not their job.

If the question is, can he be a "candidate" for a federal office, then that is what the FEC was asked to settle. And they did.

But he still can't be President.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD
How about before the FEC even looks into any funding for the candidate they prove their eligibility for the office they are running for. That makes too much sense I guess.
Not their job. So no, it makes no sense at all.

I for one am pretty firmly opposed to random departments of the executive branch arbitrarily deciding issues that are not their responsibility to decide.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2011, 12:42 PM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,483,709 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher View Post
Nope. You should take a civics/government course.

We don't want the Executive Branch taking over functions of the Judicial branch.

It's too complex to explain it to you here. It would take days to make you understand.
uhm who was talking about executive or judicial...we are talking about the FEC

an example:

a "famous" foreigner....arnold schwarzenegger wants to run for POTUS...we all KNOW that BY LAW he cant...but BY THIS RULING... the FEC is going to say we CANT say you cant and you CAN be a candidate with matching funds...you can run , but you cant be elected?????

its just stupid
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2011, 12:43 PM
 
16,545 posts, read 13,452,677 times
Reputation: 4243
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
I think the letter is clear as a bell. I see no contradiction in it at all.
I see it. The guy admits he doesn't qualify for running as POTUS, but still wants to. FEC says he can, then later on in the letter it says that in order for the FEC act to let him run he must FIRST meet all other obligations first. So which is it? Does the FEC let a known unqualified person run for POTUS or do they not? The letter seems to say both things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2011, 12:44 PM
 
13,186 posts, read 14,978,392 times
Reputation: 4555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Joshua View Post
So what is the intent of all of this? Is this just a big joke or do you think that this guy is actually trying to make a statement?
He's likely a nut case. But he might want to have standing in Court to argue that he should be eligible to run for President due to some legal argument. If the FEC was allowed to exclude him now...he would have no standing in court.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2011, 12:44 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,077,572 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
a "famous" foreigner....arnold schwarzenegger wants to run for POTUS...we all KNOW that BY LAW he cant...but BY THIS RULING... the FEC is going to say we CANT say you cant and you CAN be a candidate with matching funds...you can run , but you cant be elected?????

its just stupid
Actually, they said he can't get matching funds.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2011, 12:46 PM
 
13,186 posts, read 14,978,392 times
Reputation: 4555
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
uhm who was talking about executive or judicial...we are talking about the FEC

an example:

a "famous" foreigner....arnold schwarzenegger wants to run for POTUS...we all KNOW that BY LAW he cant...but BY THIS RULING... the FEC is going to say we CANT say you cant and you CAN be a candidate with matching funds...you can run , but you cant be elected?????

its just stupid
FEC --------------Executive

Courts that rule on election law..............Judicial.

You want the FEC to rule on election law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2011, 12:46 PM
 
29,981 posts, read 42,934,013 times
Reputation: 12828
Quote:
Originally Posted by All American NYC View Post
Where is the FEC get the authority (standing) to determine the intent of the Founding Father’s? Do they really have this authority?
No. Likely this "rule" will go to SCOTUS should any "naturalized" citizen attempt to run. This is something that the former Governator of the sanctuary state California wanted before his self-imploded his political career.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2011, 12:47 PM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,483,709 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
Actually, they said he can't get matching funds.
correct but he can get contributions(2nd para)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2011, 12:49 PM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,483,709 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher View Post
FEC --------------Executive

Courts that rule on election law..............Judicial.

You want the FEC to rule on election law.
Quote:
You want the FEC to rule on election law
no, I dont want the to 'rule'....what I want is the FEC (federal ELECTIONS) to follow the LAW


it is just STUPID to tell a person, yes you can be a candidate for that office.. but you cant be elected to that office

fact: by law he cant be potus...therefore BY LAW he should not even be allowed to run...the FEC has FAILED to grasp that FACT
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:24 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top