Is John Kerry even eligible to run for President?

U.S. Constituion with questions and commentary ^ | 3/7/04 | Jack Black

[Jack Black]

A simple reading of the Constitution and knowledge of history suggests the John Kerry may not be eligible to run for President.

Ammendment 14 says in part:

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.

Now, Kerry took an oath as a naval officer prior to his service in Vietnam. Upon his return he led an organization designed to pressure the government to end a war. I think many would agree this clearly rose to the level of "aid and comfort" to the enemy.

Thus a plain reading of the Constiution suggests that Kerry is not eligible for President, unless 2/3 of each House remove such disability.

There are more questions than answers posed by this. For instance, who enforces this law? Other requirements for Presidenncy are age attainment and citizenship. In practice it seems that this is all done "on the honor system".

Effectively at the present time who certifies people eligible for office? Each state's secretaries of state? Getting Kerry ruled ineligible to run for President, in even one state would be an intersting exercise.

Fair minded Republicans could then introduce, simultaneously, resolutions "removing the disability, caused by the aid and comfort given to the enemy Communist Party of Vietnam in 1970, that disqualifies John Kerry from running for office."

We could then have long congressional hearings, witness, executive sessions, demand to make records public, etc.

Anyone considered this? I remember when the first whispers began that Clinton should be impeached. It became a roar after Ann Coulters book.

[Jack Black]

Comments.

[Support Free Republic]

---

	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-

[el_texicano]

It'll never happen

[Jack Black]

Ping for your consideration.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

John Kerry served in Vietnam?

[TMSuchman]

As this is an intersting thought, but that will not stop him. Besides, he is going to be defeated in Nov. if I have my say in the matter. Oh, I will. I & my wife are going to vote that day! Just read the last part of my tag line!

[Jack Black]

I agree, it probably will not. Any answers on the specific questions, though? Who enforces this in practice, if anyone. It might be as simple as one right-thinking Secretary of State to put this issue in front of the nation.

Or, some group could act like the liberals, shop for an ultra-conservative Federal Magistrate and sue to stop him being put on the ballot.

[Jeff Head]

GREAT idea and I believe it is one that is a legitmate concern and in keeping with a reading of the Constitution.

Kerry is no friend to this country or the moral values and traditions it has been built upon. To the contrary, as I see it, he is an enemy to those values and traditions.

[finnman69]

it won't happen...BUT....it is worth getting the possibility into the press which will undermine Kerry's Vietnam record.

[Don Corleone]

Or, some group could act like the liberals, shop for an ultra-conservative Federal Magistrate and sue to stop him being put on the ballot

This is the answer

[ARCADIA]

Any answers on the specific questions, though?

An interesting thought, and perhaps a good way to force Kerry and the Media to discuss his dishonerable performance. A third party suit for an injunction to prevent Kerry's name from appearing as a candidate on the ballot of a chosen state would be the way to go.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Interesting but dems don't follow laws and pubbies in Congress are "testicle-less".

[mtbopfuyn]

Oh, you silly thing. Don't you know that he's only ineligible when Shrillary deems it so.

[The Brush]

I believe the politically correct term would be "testicle-free"

[inquest]

If this is truly a serious question, there'd be no legal basis to this type of challenge. "Aid and comfort" has a specific legal meaning. It refers to actual logistical support of the enemy, or providing safe haven, or something of that nature. Mere advocacy for the enemy, however reprehensible that may be, simply does not fall into that category.

[Piquaboy]

Bill Clinton was elected president and he gave aid and comfort to the enemy during the Vietnam War. I would not have been able to get a top-secret clearance (which I had) if I had done this. Yet! he was elected predident. Something is rotten in Denmark.

[Wolfhound777]

Not to mention his current "aid and comfort" to Sadrs army.

[E Rocc]

Note that this would also make him inelgible to serve in the Senate. I doubt it will ever be applied to his antiwar activities. The meetings he allegedly had with the North Vietnamese during the war may be another matter.

-Eric

[Jack Black]

Which State? I live in Washington. We have a liberal Dem Governor.

[sgtbono2002]

Kerry not only gave aid and comfort to the enemy during Vietnam he is still doing it right now.