According to the Constitution Kerry is prohibited from being a senator.

http://www.crushkerry.com/ ^ | Sat Jun 26, 2004 5:25 am | Phantom

[TomGuy]

Except for one thing--due process.

He was never charged, tried, nor convicted.

End of story.

[patriciaruth]

bump!

[PBRSTREETGANG]

Except for one thing--due process.

OK, well there is that.

[Jewels1091]

After reading this...I don't see where you have to be charged...just that you did it. It's on tape that we've all seen...wonder if someone should email this to some talk show hosts????

[Flux Capacitor]

Oh, I agree, but this is never gonna go anywhere. People have a hard enough time these days wrapping their minds around the language of the FIRST Amendment; never mind expecting them to remember what the next twenty-six even are.

Which fits the agenda perfectly.... if the American public at large were willing to see to it that the Constitution was enforced, the Democratic Party would never be able to find anybody they could run for any office ever again.

-Dan

[NetValue]

I am no attorney, but I wonder whether a suit against his candidacy could be filed.

[taxcontrol]

Ok, so do something about it. File a lawsuit to prevent Kerry's name from appearing on a ballot.

[taxcontrol]

No due process is required - the provision does NOT require conviction. Granted, I don't think it has a snow ball's chance of working....

[gdani]

If this can of worms were opened (extreme long shot) it could just as easily work against Repubs who opposed Willie's military actions.

Or against those who will oppose President Hillary's.

[newfreep]

That could lead to the hildebeast becoming the candidate....let's keep sKerry.

[TexasTransplant]

For libs wrapping their minds around the Second Ammendment is even more difficult.

[BureaucratusMaximus]

The timing of this discovery is questionable at best. /sarcasm

[pctech]

Ok, how does one do that? I'd be willing to at least check into the procedures to get it started.

[landerwy]

I have a question too. If the Swift Boat Vets keep getting told they can not "testify" about Kerry because they were not on the same boat, then how can Kerry testify about others supposed war crimes if they were not on his boat? If they were on his boat and committed war crimes then he was their commanding officer and he should be held accountable. They can't have it both ways!

[hushpad]

>>>I am no attorney, but I wonder whether a suit against his candidacy could be filed.


This is the United States of America. Anyone can be sued for anything by anybody at any time.

It would be nice if a conservative lawyer (look what I just wrote: conservative lawyer?! HA!), anyway, a conservative lawyer, ready to retire (in case things go badly), should take on a class-action lawsuit against Kerry, actually ,a team of conservative lawyers suing a bunch of liberals for a bunch of things..If I was a lawyer, I'd do it just for fun.

It would be pure madness! It would be great TV!

[savedbygrace]

That's the way we do things here in the United States of America. A person is not guilty of a crime until they are charged, tried, and convicted. As Tom says, due process.

This is going nowhere. Drop it.

[Lady Jag]

Okay, so does it also mean the opposite? That, if the commanding officer is on another Swift Boat in a group, that no one needs to obey him?

[Flux Capacitor]

Oh, the libs understand the Second Amendment every bit as well as we do.... that's why they're working so hard to foster a nation of total ignorance and apathy, so the 2nd (among others) will be that much easier to get rid of.

-Dan

[lelio]

No due process is required - the provision does NOT require conviction.

Then who decides what "given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" means and if it applies to Kerry (if that's what your post was about)?