Interesting question for any legal historians - has anyone ever been convicted of treason absent a formal declaration of war?  There can't be much case law on this.  Most of the cases that people refer to as treason don't directly involve a charge of treason, i.e. John Walker Lindh or the Rosenbergs.

Quoted: regardless of your point, your educational background or your superior intellect... you are quite possibly the most condescending pompous asshole I have ever had the displeasure of coming across.  even 14 year old punks can be rational and polite even when others attempt to "agree to disagree" let me speak for the rest of arfcom when i tell you to take your phd and your arrogant attitude and shove it up your dirt circle.

So, you have been appointed the official arfcom spokesperson? I guess I didn't get the memo.

Oopsie. Was that pompous and condescending? Sorry.

Quoted: Interesting question for any legal historians - has anyone ever been convicted of treason absent a formal declaration of war?  There can't be much case law on this.  Most of the cases that people refer to as treason don't directly involve a charge of treason, i.e. John Walker Lindh or the Rosenbergs.

There have been quite a few treason conviction absent an actual declared war. In fact, the first treason convictions in the United States were for several participants in the Whiskey Rebellion (Washington pardoned them all). Aaron Burr was tried for treason, but acquited, despite there being no actual declared war at the time of the offense.

In over 200 years since the passage of the Constitution, there have been less than 40 people prosecuted for treason, including two (Thomas Dorr in RI, and John Brown in VA) for committing treason at the state level (since many states also have treason defined at the state level).

John Kerry will NOT be prosecuted for treason, let alone convicted.

requesting petition signatures here:

patriotpetitions.us

Quoted: Please remember that the word "Slavery" also appears nowhere in the original Constitution, but several clauses were plainly written to address the institution. If one merely read the words of these clauses, without understanding the context, and without reviewing the statements made during the ratification debates, you could reach wildly erroneous conclusions. Kind of like what you are doing now with Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

I have about zero legal expertise or professional knowledge of the constitution, but as a layman, I have a problem with this type of reasoning.  To take the Slavery issue as an example - Sure, the context of the ammendment being written and added to the Constitution may have been Slavery, but if all the authors wanted to do was narrowly and explicitly outlaw slavery, then they would have said so, explicitly.  Instead, they recognized that there were many other related injustices that fell into the same class of problem, of which slavery was just one.  So they abstracted the idea and wrote in general terms in hopes of preventing the real root causes of the problem, rather than outlawing one specific example of such injustice.  After all, that's what Constitutions are for: setting down the big broad strokes which frame the 1000's of other federal laws.

And I view this 14th ammendment issue the same way.  The authors thought out their words carefully, and meant them to mean exactly what they say.  If they only meant to stop the confederates, but figured it was ok for future rebels and enemy-aiders to be in office down the road, then they would have said so.  Instead they wrote in broad language that clearly says that rebels, insurrectionists, and people who aid the enemy can't take office without 2/3 of the congress behind them.

Quoted: Open Letter To Kerry States "Law Is Clear, US Constitution Disqualifies You From The Presidency" (snip) Now, on the campaign trail, you are calling the war against Saddam Hussein and terrorism in Iraq "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time." You are giving aid and comfort to the enemy again.

It's too bad Mr. Kraft threw in this part - the first point is valid, but this rediculous statement is going to keep a lot of people from treating his letter seriously.  He's saying that anyone who ever disagrees with our country going to war is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Regardless of how someone feels about a particular war, this statement is completely contradictory to the basic principles of free speech that make this country great.  Even if you believe that flag burning and other questionable activities shouldn't fall under freedom of speech, we still have to uphold the founding fathers' intent that you should be able to voice differing political opinions without fear of prosecution.

Dave

Quoted: Quoted: Open Letter To Kerry States "Law Is Clear, US Constitution Disqualifies You From The Presidency" (snip) Now, on the campaign trail, you are calling the war against Saddam Hussein and terrorism in Iraq "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time." You are giving aid and comfort to the enemy again. It's too bad Mr. Kraft threw in this part - the first point is valid, but this rediculous statement is going to keep a lot of people from treating his letter seriously.  He's saying that anyone who ever disagrees with our country going to war is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Regardless of how someone feels about a particular war, this statement is completely contradictory to the basic principles of free speech that make this country great.  Even if you believe that flag burning and other questionable activities shouldn't fall under freedom of speech, we still have to uphold the founding fathers' intent that you should be able to voice differing political opinions without fear of prosecution. Dave

I agree with you that anyone should have a free speech right to make statments along the lines of: "I don't agree with this war", I do feel that the Kerry situation is a little bit different.  He is a US Senator, and he's running for President in a very close race.  As a Senator and certainly as a strong potential future President, his words carry different weight and meaning when he expresses such sentiments.  It's certainly within his rights to say such things, but I do feel that his statements are truly damaging because of who he is - his current and possible future positions in the US Govt, and people should be pissed at him for making such statements.  There are plenty of other politically minded people aligned with his ideals which can serve as a mouthpeice for these sentiments in his stead, and many of them are doing so.

Quoted: Quoted: Please remember that the word "Slavery" also appears nowhere in the original Constitution, but several clauses were plainly written to address the institution. If one merely read the words of these clauses, without understanding the context, and without reviewing the statements made during the ratification debates, you could reach wildly erroneous conclusions. Kind of like what you are doing now with Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. I have about zero legal expertise or professional knowledge of the constitution, but as a layman, I have a problem with this type of reasoning.  To take the Slavery issue as an example - Sure, the context of the ammendment being written and added to the Constitution may have been Slavery, but if all the authors wanted to do was narrowly and explicitly outlaw slavery, then they would have said so, explicitly. [re]The 13th Amendment did NOT pussy-foot around the topic It specifically used the word SLAVERY for the first time in the Constitution.  Instead, they recognized that there were many other related injustices that fell into the same class of problem, of which slavery was just one. No, they did not. The 13th only outlawed slavery and involuntary servitude (another legal term for slavery). Read the Constitution. Don't make assumptions, read it and the Congression records. So they abstracted the idea and wrote in general terms in hopes of preventing the real root causes of the problem, rather than outlawing one specific example of such injustice.  After all, that's what Constitutions are for: setting down the big broad strokes which frame the 1000's of other federal laws. And I view this 14th ammendment issue the same way.  The authors thought out their words carefully, and meant them to mean exactly what they say.  If they only meant to stop the confederates, but figured it was ok for future rebels and enemy-aiders to be in office down the road, then they would have said so.  Instead they wrote in broad language that clearly says that rebels, insurrectionists, and people who aid the enemy can't take office without 2/3 of the congress behind them.

One of the canons of judicial construction is that when a clause can be construed many different ways, as can Section 3 of the 14th, we must look to the statements made by those who framed and passed it to understand its intent. This is why I mention the need to read the Congressional records that pertains to the framing of the 14th.

The people who framed it clearly meant it to apply to the recently defeated Confederates. The reason for the clause "or given aid and comfort to the enemies thereof" was to cover those who supported the Confederacy, but without actually serving in the military or Confederate government. Active service was covered by the "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" clause, more passive support by the "aid and comfort" clause. Military or governmental service in the Confederacy was considered de facto evidence of rebellion, which per the amendment did not require proof in court (again, read the Congression Record). The more passive support still required proof in court, the same level of proof required in all treason cases.  

Even if we stretch Section 3 to cover future rebels and traitors, there still must be a judicial finding before the prohibition attaches. Mere suspicion of having given aid and comfort, or the opinion of some, is not enough to bar one from holding office. If it were, all it would take was some DU dunce to get up a petition charging Bush with giving aid and comfort to the "enemy" (as defined by them) in order to have him removed from office. Since Kerry does not get a day in court before he is barred, why not the same for Bush? Remember that there was clear evidence tha Aaron Burr tried to set up a separate country carved out of U.S. territiory. But Burr had to be acquitted on the treason charge because the Constitution REQUIRES two witnesses to testify in Court to the overt act (or a confession by the accused) and they only had one witness and a bunch of documents.  

You see, I am so picky (even an SOB) about Constitutional issues because silly temporary passions, like this one, can set precedents that would be disastrous down the line. The Law of Unitended Consequences operates in this area with a vengeance. Only by clearly understanding the intent of those who framed and passed the Constitution and its amendments can we keep from injecting our personal opinions into that document. Instead, we can be guided by something a bit more solid.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: PAEBR332, you sound like a typical trial lawyer who will bend "the document" to fit your needs as you see fit. I understand the 14th Amendment was written with the Confederacy in mind, but section three mentions nothing about the Confederacy, only "enemies." Arguing with you is like arguing with Bill Clinton over what the meaning of the word "is" is. Hanoi John is still a treasonous scumbag, and will not get elected POTUS. I'm not a lawyer. Never went to law school. I did, however, spend nearly a decade studying U.S. Constitutional Law and History at the Undergraduate, Masters, and Doctoral level. Please remember that the word "Slavery" also appears nowhere in the original Constitution, but several clauses were plainly written to address the institution. If one merely read the words of these clauses, without understanding the context, and without reviewing the statements made during the ratification debates, you could reach wildly erroneous conclusions. Kind of like what you are doing now with Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The only way Section 3 of the 14th would apply to Kerry is if he were convicted IN A COURT OF LAW of treason. Until that time, he may continue to sit in the Senate and run for the Presidency. Once convicted of treason, he would then be barred from holding public office in the U.S, unless the disablilty were removed by a 2/3rds vote in both houses of Congress. Please do not accuse me of bending the document to fit my needs. I am merely giving information missing from the amateur Constitutional scholar's email that started this whole silly discussion. It is you who is trying to "stretch" the Constitution to cover something you desire greatly.   I will agree to disagree with you, PAEBR332. Do you consider Kerry to be guilty of anything when he went to Paris to negotiate with representatives of the communist government of North Viet Nam? And by the way, there was no "declared" war going on when the Rosenbergs were executed for treason. Explain that. If you knew anything about the Rosenberg case, you would know they were never convicted of treason. They were convicted of espionage. You could at least have your facts straight when you attempt to argue your points.   As for what I consider Kerry guilty of, it's irrelevant. The Constitution requires Kerry be found guilty of treason IN A COURT OF LAW.  My opinion, and yours, on his guilt has no bearing on that constitutional requirement. regardless of your point, your educational background or your superior intellect... you are quite possibly the most condescending pompous asshole I have ever had the displeasure of coming across.  even 14 year old punks can be rational and polite even when others attempt to "agree to disagree" let me speak for the rest of arfcom when i tell you to take your phd and your arrogant attitude and shove it up your dirt circle.

I like Paebr332, his posts are a breath of fresh air compared to the majority of posts in this thread, including yours.  I don't find him to be arrogant at all.   I'm surprised he bothered to post as only a complete imbecile would actually think this amendment could apply to Kerry until he is convicted of treason.  

You've only got  a few weeks left, better get the process started to accuse him of treason....

PAEBR323, Why hasn't the 14th amendment been striken. Surely all of the civil war participants are dead. Your problem is that you are thinkging like a lawyer. In your world there is only gray.

Quoted: PAEBR323, Why hasn't the 14th amendment been striken. Surely all of the civil war participants are dead. Your problem is that you are thinkging like a lawyer. In your world there is only gray.

because if we have another rebellion or have someone convicted of treason who runs for office, it would still apply.

Quoted: PAEBR323, Why hasn't the 14th amendment been striken. Surely all of the civil war participants are dead. Your problem is that you are thinkging like a lawyer. In your world there is only gray.

No, I am thinking like a Constitutionalist. It is you who is trying to introduce shades of gray.

Absent a court ruling that someone committed treason, this Section can never apply to anyone, including John Kerry. My further point was that since Section 3 was focused on former Confederate rebels and "aiders and comforters" it would take a activist judge to stretch it to cover later acts of treason. One can make an argument that this can or should be done, but you should do so understanding the full implications of going beyond the clearly expressed intent of those who framed the passage in question.

I chose to be VERY cautious when it comes to moving beyond the expressed intent of the framers.

Quoted: Quoted: PAEBR323, Why hasn't the 14th amendment been striken. Surely all of the civil war participants are dead. Your problem is that you are thinkging like a lawyer. In your world there is only gray. No, I am thinking like a Constitutionalist. It is you who is trying to introduce shades of gray. Absent a court ruling that someone committed treason, this Section can never apply to anyone, including John Kerry. My further point was that since Section 3 was focused on former Confederate rebels and "aiders and comforters" it would take a activist judge to stretch it to cover later acts of treason. One can make an argument that this can or should be done, but you should do so understanding the full implications of going beyond the clearly expressed intent of those who framed the passage in question. I chose to be VERY cautious when it comes to moving beyond the expressed intent of the framers.

Again, while I defer to your obviously superior experience in these matters, it seems counterintuitive to me that the "clearly expressed intent of those who frame the passage" is in fact a different thing than the literal words that those people wrote in said passage, and that this clearly expressed intent can only be discerned by studying contextual information that does not reside within the document itself.  It seems more correct to me that they did clearly express their intent in the wording of the document itself, and that what you're (and everyone else who studies the constitution it would seem) doing is trying to second-guess them based on the circumstances under which they wrote the document.

The liberals will just say its right wing trying to not let kerry in office even though the proof is right in front of them.  The democrats wont do anything to him hell they love him for anti american shit like that.  Pot smokin treehuggers.  Fuckem  I hope bush wins the electoral vote but loses the popular vote just to piss off all the democrats

He has a plan.

Quoted: I agree with you that anyone should have a free speech right to make statments along the lines of: "I don't agree with this war", I do feel that the Kerry situation is a little bit different.  He is a US Senator, and he's running for President in a very close race.  As a Senator and certainly as a strong potential future President, his words carry different weight and meaning when he expresses such sentiments.  It's certainly within his rights to say such things, but I do feel that his statements are truly damaging because of who he is - his current and possible future positions in the US Govt, and people should be pissed at him for making such statements.  There are plenty of other politically minded people aligned with his ideals which can serve as a mouthpeice for these sentiments in his stead, and many of them are doing so.

Well said - I certainly agree that his comments during the campaign are not appropriate for a possible future commander-in-chief.  It's not very encouraging for soldiers to hear a potential president say that he doesn't believe in what they are fighting for right now.  I just don't feel that it qualifies as anything close to "giving aid and comfort to the enemy."  That's a pretty bold statement for someone to make - right up there with saying that if you don't support going to war against Iraq, you're not a patriotic American.  Support the troops, yes, but whether or not you support the war itself is a political opinion that everyone is entitled to.

It would be a lot different if he made statements in the campaign along the lines of his testimony after Vietnam - saying that American soldiers are war criminals, and he stands with the Iraqi insurgents or something to that effect.

Dave