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]

But the ammendment is quite specific. It only invalidates those who previously took an oath. This was not aimed at disenfranchising the common foot soldier who fought on the side of the south, but only the leaders of the rebellion. Since most had been either in the U.S. Army or some sort of politician this clause prevented them from running again.

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

LOL!

That does sound better.

[Lady Jag]

Vote for Bush
Support Free Republic..click pic

[BenLurkin]

Good point - but most of the partisan press is anti-American, so this harsh fact about Kerrry will be ignored.

[Jack Black]

Do we need the press to do our work for us? NO! I am calling my Secretary of State later this morning and will report my findings on this thread.

[ARCADIA]

Perhaps one of the smaller deeply Republican states.... One in Kerry has no hope of prevailing against Bush

This should not be read as a political issue; it should be done to protect the constitution, to ensure that we give proper weight to it entirety and not just to our most favored clauses. We may well find that Kerry's behavior fails to rise to the level of Aid and Comfort, but, it might raise the bar for other potential candidates.

[Zeppo]

IMHO, trying to invalidate Kerry's candidacy is a losing proposition. Instead, wouldn't it be fun to turn it on its head? Rather than acting AGAINST Kerry, it might be a good idea to act FOR Kerry, by removing any possible cloud on his candidacy. The way to do that is clear: "But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability"

That's right - have a group of congresspersons introduce a bill in the House and Senate to forgive his past treasonous actions in order to make sure that he is eligible to run for President. It would be akin to asking "when did you stop beating your wife". It'll never happen, of course, but wouldn't it be fun to do some muckraking to start a petition to "save Kerry's candidacy" in that way?

[Zeppo]

I guess that great minds think alike...

[Travis McGee]

I think he's a traitor for what he did after VN, but we'll never hear this mentioned in the media.

[Enduring Freedom]

I know for a fact that I have changed voters minds in favor of the GOP almost daily.

Every conversation I have in the boardroom, airport waiting lounge, restaurant, golf club, involves ridicule and destruction of Kerry.

You need only mention 5 things to turn people permanently from Kerry. Here are some TALKING POINTS, Freepers:

1. John Kerry was part of a group called VVAW and was present in a meeting calling for the assassination of U.S. Senators who supported the Vietnam war. First Kerry said it didn't happen; then he said he wasn't present; then he said he resigned from the group because of it. All he said has proven to be verified lies, as he was the group's leader for years following. Can you imagine the President of the United States being such a person?

2. John Kerry spoke out against the Vietnam war while troops were fighting overseas. He helped to demoralize our army and embolden the enemy. He claimed that he committed war crimes and maligned the entire military by claiming they did too. In the same breath, he claims he was a war hero. Can you imagine the Commander-In-Chief being such a person?

3. John Kerry voted AGAINST the first Iraq war, when Saddam invaded Kuwait. Even the wider international community and the United Nations were supportive that time, hell, even Muslim countries. At the time, it has been documented that he wrote two different letters to the same voter nine days apart. One said he supported the war from the outset; the other said he was against the war from the outset.

Curiously, the present Iraq war he voted FOR. But he then voted against funding it, including for military bullet-proof vests. Then he said "I actually voted for the (funding) before I voted against it." Can you imagine John Kerry as your decisive leader?

4. John Kerry has been rated universally the most EXTREME LIBERAL in the entire U.S. Senate. He voted to raise taxes 350 times, and voted against the Bush tax cuts. He claims that the present economy is a disaster under Bush. Despite Bush inheriting Clinton's recession, despite 9/11, despite confronting corporate malfeasance, Bush ended the recession in November 2001. Today's economy is booming. The unemployment index is around the same level that Clinton actually boasted about for his re-election in 1996. The pace of economic growth, pace of job growth, level of home ownership, low interest rate, low misery index, all are almost unprecedented. Can you imagine voting against Bush for this incredible record, in favor of Extreme Liberal John Kerry?

5. Kerry bragged that foreign leaders endorsed him. He is so Liberal and so anti-American that even our enemies endorsed him until that embarrassment led to his campaign manager publically renouncing foreign endorsements. But that hasn't stopped terrorists from continuing to suppport his candidacy. Can you imagine the President of the United States having the vote of our enemies?

[antiRepublicrat]

Upon his return he led an organization designed to pressure the government to end a war.

That in itself wouldn't be disqualification, it would be an exercise of 1st Amendment rights. However, if in doing so gave "aid and comfort" to the enemy, that would be a disqualification.

OTOH, "aid and comfort" has specific meaning in the Constitution relating to treason, so it is likely one would have to be convicted of treason (legally establishing aid and comfort) or have been involved in an actual insurrection before being disqualified to run for President.

[Jack Black]

I agree, that's the way to go. That's actually what I suggested in my original post.

[antiRepublicrat]

This was not aimed at disenfranchising the common foot soldier who fought on the side of the south, but only the leaders of the rebellion. Since most had been either in the U.S. Army or some sort of politician this clause prevented them from running again.

It did disenfranchise everyone involved, but Congress in 1872 passed a general amnesty for all except some leaders.

[Alouette]

This amendment was intended to prevent former Confederate officers or former Confederate government officials from running for office in the U.S.

[LauraJean]

which side?

[Zeppo]

Wow, guess that I need to read all the way to the last paragraph before responding! :-)

[johnny7]

Only men who served in The National Guard during the Vietnam era are given such close scrutiny. You've been here long enough to know that! ;>)

[tongue-tied]

Testiclly challenged?

Spelling is weird on that first word...

[Jack Black]

Got off the phone with the Secretary of States office. First off let me say a few good things about much maligned public servants here. It's 8:45 AM on Good Friday morning. After the obligatory "do you want to use English or one a laundry list of lesser languages" voice response stuff I was connected with a woman in the office on about the second ring. Well done. She was uniformly helpful and courteous on our call.

My question to her was: "Who is our state is responsible for certifying the eligibility of candidates to run for President". The net net answer is she didn't know. We had an interesting 5 minute conversation. At first she said the major political parties were. She was quite clear that the Sec. of State's office does this for state-wide parties, but the Presidency is different. I pointed out that it would be odd to have parties certify themselves, there is no check and balance in such a system. She agreed.

Of course the real election for President is in the Electoral College I pointed out. She seemed broadly familiar with the concept (after initally confusing it with the party conventions), but unable to say much about it.

I received the promised call back within 15 minutes. The woman I spoke with was also very polite. Her bottom line was the any checks on candidate eligibility are probably done at the party and federal level. She suggested the FEC web site. She was very familiar with the Electoral College. Washington is a winner take all state, and the electors are bound. The first woman's comments now made more sense: the major parties select their electors at there conventions (as she points out sometimes before they know who the candidate will be).

I will continue to investigate. Any volunteers to work on other states they live in?