Posted on 08/11/2004 8:22:45 AM PDT by crushelits
Kerry is prohibited from being a senator, congressman, vice president and president according to the Constitution.
I don't recall a 2/3rds vote removing his disability to serve, in accordance with Amendment XIV, Section 3. For those that would complain that it is an old amendment intended only for civil war veterans and to help subjugate the south during reconstruction, I would have to say I don’t recall a 2/3rds vote rescinding the Amendment as no longer valid.
***AMENDMENT XIV, Section 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.***
Kerry was an officer of the United States, and if his actions with VVAW cannot be characterized as "insurrection or rebellion", his admission of killing civilians including a baby could be, since it was contrary to published orders, if this isn't enough, then he also admitted giving aid and comfort to the enemy, at Paris, offering to assist them in any way possible to help bring about a swift end to the war, before doing just that with is testimony to congress and demonstrations fronting for a group of liars that many of whom where either not vets or never in Vietnam.
You will notice there is no constitutional requirement for the citizen to be convicted of the crimes, and since said crimes were publicly admitted, there is no question as to whether or not they have occurred, even though he was never tried and convicted for his actions. In fact, in support of this these, I don’t believe any civil war officers were “convicted” in order to be denied service under this Amendment, or that all the otherwise eligible men of the southern states were “convicted” in order to cut the representation of their state.
Therefore, unless Kerry never took his oath of office, he is barred from service in his current position, AND that of President.
Also remember this:
"The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now." South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905).
"Where the meaning of the constitution is clear and unambiguous, there can be no resort to construction to attribute to the founders a purpose of intent not manifest in its letter." Norris v. Baltimore, 172, Md. 667; 192 A 531.0.
"If the legislature clearly misinterprets a constitutional provision, the frequent repetition of the wrong will not create a right." Amos v. Mosley, 74 Fla. 555; 77 So. 619.
In other words, if it says what it says, it means what it says. And that even if congress ignores it for a few years by letting something slide, it still isn’t legal, and can still be redressed for correction.
Bet they don't want to debate that....
Except for one thing--due process.
He was never charged, tried, nor convicted.
End of story.
bump!
OK, well there is that.
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????
I am no attorney, but I wonder whether a suit against his candidacy could be filed.
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....
Or against those who will oppose President Hillary's.
That could lead to the hildebeast becoming the candidate....let's keep sKerry.
For libs wrapping their minds around the Second Ammendment is even more difficult.
The timing of this discovery is questionable at best. /sarcasm
Ok, how does one do that? I'd be willing to at least check into the procedures to get it started.
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!
This is going nowhere. Drop it.
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?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.