Amendment XIV, Section 3 of the Constitution - Kerry Barred By Constitution

US CONSTITUTION ^ | Ratified 7/9/1868 | crushelits

[crushelits]

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec3

Amendment XIV, Section 3 of the Constitution 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

[mcg1969]

We have been over this many, many times. Give it up.

[Paleo Conservative]

But how are you going to enforce it?

[TomGuy]

Never charged, never indicted, never convicted. No due process.

Case closed.

[MineralMan]

This has been posted, in one form or another, dozens of times on FR. While you may like its philosophical point, it's a dead horse. Without a charge and a conviction, it has no relevance to this election.

There are many issues. This is not one of them.

[Blood of Tyrants]

"or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof"

I believe that this can easily be shown. The Constitution doesn't say that Kerry has to be convicted.

[taxcontrol]

No due process required. This is not a criminal code but rather deals with the qualifications to be an elector to the office of President.

As to how to enforce, use it as the justification for a lawsuit against the FEC from distributing funds to the Kerry campaign. The base assumption is that if the candidate is not qualified to be an elector to the office of President, then the FEC can not distribute federal election funds.

[dmz]

And the other side will claim that the same lines from the Constitution disqualify GWB, as they'll claim that his invasion of Iraq has aided in the recruitment efforts of additional terrorists.

Of all the things out there to DQ JK, this is one of the silliest.

[mcg1969]

How do you propose proving your case against the FEC without the evidentiary equivalent of due process?

[mcg1969]

The Constitution doesn't say a lot of things. Doesn't mean you can just wave the piece of paper and get everyone to follow it the way you think it ought to be.

The bottom line, by your own admission, it has to be shown that Kerry violated the tenets of this portion of the Constitution. And it has to be shown at all, it must be shown officially, not just by someone making a post on FreeRepublic. That means Federal Court.

Get to work.

[Modernman]

Right. This'll work.

[Centurion2000]

Interesting angle of attack. Think the supreme court would have to rule on this ?

[Bommer]

DAMN! Now your pissing off Harry Truman, JFK, LBJ and Gerald Ford!

[taxcontrol]

Again, no conviction required. No due process is required. Just as there is not due process required if the elector does not meet the age or citizenship requirements. All that is required is to show that there is a failure of qualification. Presenting sworn testimony that 1) John Kerry did meet with our enemy during a time of war and 2) that statements made by John Kerry were used by the NV against our POWs is enough to establish under existing law and court rulings that the mark of "aid and comfort" has been met.

[taxcontrol]

GWB's actions most certainly did not provide aid and comfort to the enemy. The enemy suffered as a result of his actions. You should read up on the case law regarding treason where the standard for such determination is coded in law and SCOTUS rulings. It will help clarify what is considered "aid and comfort".

[mcg1969]

Just as there is not due process required if the elector does not meet the age or citizenship requirements.

Due process most certainly is required in this case. Due process just happens to be rather straightforward in this case.

All that is required is to show that there is a failure of qualification. Presenting sworn testimony that 1) John Kerry did meet with our enemy during a time of war and 2) that statements made by John Kerry were used by the NV against our POWs is enough to establish under existing law and court rulings that the mark of "aid and comfort" has been met.

So who decides that appropriate evidence establishing the mark of "aid and comfort" has been met? A COURT OF LAW.

That's due process.

[taxcontrol]

I'm not sure what you are talking about. I was talking about going before a COURT OF LAW, and presenting the evidence to support the law suit that the FEC should not be giving funds to a candidate that is not qualified as to hold the office.

[mcg1969]

Then you're not disagreeing with me that due process is required.

That's fine.

Get to work.

I think it's going to get tossed out of court, but go for it.

[dmz]

That you took the comment seriously enough to point me to the various documents is pretty scary.

[taxcontrol]

Sorry, I had assumed that you would want to look the material up for yourself rather than rely on my inputs.

From the online legal dictionary:
AID AND COMFORT. The constitution of the United States, art. 8, s. 3, declares, that adhering to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort, shall be treason. These words, as they are to be understood in the constitution, have not received a full judicial construction. They import, however, help, support, assistance, countenance, encouragement. The word aid, which occurs in the Stat. West. 1, c. 14, is explained by Lord Coke (2 just. 182) as comprehending all persons counselling, abetting, plotting, assenting, consenting, and encouraging to do the act, (and he adds, what is not applicable to the Crime to treason,) who are not present when the act is done, See, also, 1 Burn's Justice, 5, 6; 4 Bl. Com. 37, 38.


Also:
http://www.constitution.org/js/js_339.htm

See Cramer vs United States (An American citizen was charged with aiding a Nazi saboteur who was tried and convicted by a Military Tribunal. Although Cramer was convicted by a trial court and his conviction upheld by a Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court reversed, 5-4, because the majority and the dissent disagreed about whether Cramer's conduct had actually provided "aid and comfort" to the Nazis.)


Also, Haupt v. United States, where the American citizen father of one of the saboteurs was charged with aiding his own son. Haupt, Sr., was convicted, his conviction upheld on appeal, and the Supreme Court affirmed.

In these three cases, the Supreme Court interpreted the "adhering to their enemies, giving aid and comfort" language of Article III as requiring a treason prosecutor to prove four elements in order to get a conviction: (1) the defendant's intention to betray the United States, (2) manifested in an overt act, (3) testified to by two witnesses, (4) which gave aid and comfort to the enemy. (A declaration of war is unnecessary; mere hostilities are enough). These are all jury questions. This means that if there is reason to believe the accused's conduct may have satisfied these four proof requirements, he can be indicted, and if a jury agrees that his conduct did satisfy them, he can be convicted.

However, do not take my word for it - please, do your own research.