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?