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

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

[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subjugate the south during reconstruction, I would have to say I don’t recall a 2/3rds vote rescinding the Amendment as no longer valid.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....

[taxcontrol]

Another tactic you might take would be seeking an injunction barring the federal government from dispensing funds to the campaign. Getting even a temp suspension of funding would hurt their campaign considerably.

Lastly, be cautious of what you wish for. If you get your way and Kerry is not able to run, then Edwards is the prime on the ticket - if I were him, I would ask Hilldebeast as VP. This would likely motivate the Dem base like no other possible ticket and could very well through the election to them.

There are other horror scenarios. Lets face it, Kerry is the best candidate for Bush to run against. Anyone else will likely cause the race to be even closer or perhaps even tilt to the Dems favor.

[upchuck]

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.

And for that we can thank the NEA and leftist universities.

[familyofman]

"Except for one thing--due process.

He was never charged, tried, nor convicted.

End of story"

Exactly!!! Why waste time & energy on dead-ends. Unless you really like to play with yourself mentally.

[Celtman]

Challenge his qualification to be on the ballot in your state!

      But remember the electoral college.  We vote for electors, regardless of how the ballot is worded.  And as others have said, only convictions count.  As for what he did in the military, it seems a little late for a court martial. 

[ScottFromSpokane]

Qualifications turn on questions of fact. Age and place of birth can be determined with a birth certificate.

Please inform me as to the Constitutional method of determining whether Kerry in fact "gave aid and comfort to the enemy" and is therefore ineligible to serve as a Senator under the 14th Amendment.

[taxcontrol]

I contend that "aid and comfort" would need to be determined by the Judge of the lawsuit. The means for judging such would come from several case histories.

For example
From SCOTUS HAUPT v. U.S., 330 U.S. 631 (1947)
....We have held that the minimum function of the overt act in a treason prosecution is that it show action by the accused which really was aid and comfort to the enemy. Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1, 34 , 65 S.Ct. 918, 934. This is a separate inquiry from that as to whether the acts were done because of [330 U.S. 631, 635] adherence to the enemy, for cts helpful to the enemy may nevertheless be innocent of treasonable character."

Thus conviction of treason is not necessary for the determination of qualification for the position - HOWEVER - a finding would need to be made that "aid and comfort" provided did meet the cited passages. I'm sure that would be a VERY difficult task at best. Plus, I doubt the Judiciary would want to make a finding of fact that could be used as a basis for prosecution.
However, in support of both of our positions: In two decisions, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the Administrator of Veterans Affairs had improperly terminated veterans' disability benefits under a federal statute which authorized such action concerning a beneficiary whom the Administrator found "guilty of mutiny, treason, sabotage, or rendering assistance to any enemy of the United States." In Wellman v. Whittier (1958) the court found that the Administrator grounded his action upon the beneficiary's membership in the Communist Party as established by his conviction under the Smith Act for conspiracy to advocate overthrow of the government by force. The court ruled that an overt act of assistance to an enemy of the United States must be shown, since the statute showed the intention of Congress to analogize that category of its terms to the requirements of proving treason; mere membership in the party was thus not within Congress's intent under the statute.9 In Thompson v. Gleason the Administrator based forfeiture of disability benefits on findings that the beneficiary had published pamphlets and made speeches sharply critical of the United States military involvement in Korea. The majority of a three-judge district court thought that the Administrator acted within the statute, for — citing treason cases — "It is well settled that aid and assistance to the enemy may be extended in the form of verbal utterance alone, as was the case in this instance." Circuit Judge Fahy (who as Solicitor General had presented the government's case in Cramer before the Supreme Court) dissented strongly; it was not claimed that the Administrator had found acts of treason here, and in the context of the statute's reference to treason, it should not be interpreted to penalize domestic political opposition.10 Reversing the district court, the Court of Appeals (1962) ruled that to avoid a serious question under the First Amendment the statute should be construed to require a finding that the beneficiary had committed a crime in aiding the enemy, and since the record did not show a crime, the benefits must be reinstated.

Note - The majority of a three-judge district court thought that the Administrator acted within the statute, for — citing treason cases — "It is well settled that aid and assistance to the enemy may be extended in the form of verbal utterance alone, as was the case in this instance."

Thus if Kerry did make a verbal utterance that provided aid and assistance to the enemy, then a finding of fact could be made.

However, the Court of Appeals ruling could be construed to mean that a US citizen other wise entitled to a benefit (running for office) that citizenship bestows, can not be deprived of that right without a conviction.

In short, I am of the opinion that while a conviction before a jury would not technically be required, the requirement of the evidence for a finding of fact would need to be (at least in my opinion) the same level. And if such a requirement were in place along with a reluctant judiciary, well, I foresee little chance of success.

[gcruse]

Be careful what you wish for. Without Kerry, the dems might put up an electable candidate.

[ScottFromSpokane]

I see nothing in Amendment 14 which transfers to the judiciary the power of judging the qualifications of Senators, which Article 1, Sec. 5, grants to the Senate.

And the Senate could indeed expel Kerry for giving aid and comfort to the enemy without a conviction. But they could expel Trent Lott, Carl Levin, or Jim Talent for the same reason, in that no one could stop them. They just shouldn't, and wouldn't.

[xm177e2]

his admission of killing civilians including a baby

When did Kerry admit this? Are you thinking of Bob Kerrey?

[Conservative4Life]

It would also include McCain...

[taxcontrol]

Please see Article III section 2,

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution....

It is more reasonable to argue that SCOTUS would have jurisdiction.

......In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

[Young Werther]

As I understand it, war crimes do not have a statute of limitations. Howsa 'bout a complaint be filed in Federal Court. Be intertesting to see his quibbles when confronted with his own testimony!

[ScottFromSpokane]

The Constitution explicitly gives each house exclusive power as "the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members" (my italics). I don't see how you get around that.

[taxcontrol]

.... and qualifications of it's OWN members.

Not qualifications for the Presidency.

[ScottFromSpokane]

I'm sorry, I thought we were still talking about the subject of the thread: "According to the Constitution Kerry is prohibited from being a senator."

[taxcontrol]

Sorry, I thought we were talking about his qualifications for Presidency.

Per your comment you are correct. The Senate would be the judge of it's own members. This creates an interesting legal mental exercise.

Suppose that a suit is filed in Federal court and it is determined that Kerry was not qualified to be President as per Amendment 14 section 3.

Now what is the Senate to do?
Is kerry then no longer a senator?
Would the 2/3rd be required for Kerry to retake his seat?
What if the Senate does not wish to take up the issue?

[jojodamofo]

>>>> Then who decides what "given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" means

That is tough. We could really use this to our benefit, but now is not a good time (wait until after reelection).

Broadly speaking, an example ... Sean Hannity supports the troops, and the vast majority of the troops respect and honor Hannity in return. The troops become demoralized when Hannity, who outspokenly supports their mission, is criticized. When our troops are demoralized, their terrorist enemies are correspondingly strengthened, i.e., given aid. Giving aid to the enemy is treason, which may be punishable by death.

Do I believe that anyone who criticizes Hannity should be put to death? No necessarily. But do I believe we are letting a broad and potentially very useful tool in our constitution and laws sit needlessly idle? Heck yes.

[Jack Black]

I see nothing in Amendment 14 which transfers to the judiciary the power of judging the qualifications of Senators, which Article 1, Sec. 5, grants to the Senate.

OK, but the issue is who judges the qualifications of Presidential candidates. The answer is State Judges, at least in the State of Washington. Logically each state needs to ensure that they are selecting electors, in keeping with the mandates of the Constitution. Ask the question: who would disqualify Arnie (non-native-born) or Brittany Spears (too young). The same person on mechanism would logically disqualify Kerry. It is clearly not the Senate.

[crushelits]

TOO LATE...

[Jim Noble]

Except for one thing--due process.

And one other thing-

Congress, in the name of the People, never created a state of war between North Vietnam and the United States.

Therefore, a judicial determination would be required on the question of whether or not the NVA were "enemies of the United States".

There is zero chance-actually, less than zero-that a court would issue such a finding.