- This topic contains 0 voices and has 6 replies.
November 6, 2012 at 5:09 am #605483
How does Peta Lindsay of the “Socialism & Liberation Party” get on the ballot as a candidate to be President? She’s not 35, hence ineligible.
Maybe it’s just as well that we’re replacing the state Secretary of State.November 6, 2012 at 5:26 am #776660
i’ll avoid answering your question by asking one of my own:
how was george romney – who wasn’t even born in america – eligible to run for president?November 6, 2012 at 5:31 am #776661
That one’s easy. George isn’t running. It’s his son Willard (middle name Mitt) and apparently the boy was born in Detroit. So saith the Wiki, source of truth in the modern world.
Four years ago was trickier – John McCain was born in Panama, of American parents. And he predates the various postwar legislation that straightened out cases like that.November 6, 2012 at 5:33 am #776662
Here’s the first thing on Peta in Wikipedia:
Peta Lindsay (born 1984) is an American anti-war activist and presidential nominee of the Party for Socialism and Liberation in the 2012 U.S. presidential election, despite being ineligible to become president due to her age, under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution; she would need to be at least 35 in order to take office.
In re your question, something tells me that the Secretary of State does not make determinations of candidate eligibility for office. The Sec. State probably just makes a determination of whether the candidate has met filing requirements. (Has candidate paid proper fees, gotten enough signatures, etc.?)
Also, you know of course that the vast majority of 3rd Party candidates have no intention of running a serious campaign, right? Anyone with the words “Socialism” or “Liberation” in their party name is only there to make a political statement at taxpayer expense.November 6, 2012 at 5:34 am #776663
speaking of the Wiki, it says that Peta’s VP candidate Yari Osorio was born in Colombia and hence is also ineligible. Yet they’re on the ballot in 13 states. Wacky.November 6, 2012 at 5:37 am #776664
BTW, JKB, what is this “postwar legislation” on citizenship of non-US born Americans that you’re talking about? If someone were born in Panama of American parents now, would their eligibility be any different than McCain’s was?
I don’t understand. Please clarify. Thanks.November 6, 2012 at 5:47 am #776665
There was a round of legislation just after WWII. Then the real fix was the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which clarifies exactly what happens for children of American citizens born abroad. Depends on whether one or both parents are American, and there are some residency rules. Happens that’s exactly my own case, except I was born after 1952 so those are the applicable rules.
McCain’s rules are also made complicated because the Canal Zone was more under American legal control in those days than it is now. Ultimately the election would have been the proof of his eligibility. I’d assume his opponents would have dug into the legal details and screamed if there was a real case against him.
Yeah, not exactly a serious campaign for some of those parties. The voter’s pamphlet has a heartfelt request to please not write in fictional characters. But maybe that’s a good test – if you can’t outpoll Mickey Mouse, you’re not a real candidate.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.