Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/11/2004 5:04:39 PM EST
Open Letter To Kerry States "Law Is Clear, US Constitution Disqualifies You From The Presidency"

A letter I have run across... A very interesting point in this election wouldn't you say?



Senator John Kerry
c/o Democratic National Committee
530 S. Capitol St. SE
Washington DC 20003

An Open Letter to John Kerry
US Constitution Article 14 Section 3 Disqualifies You From the Presidency

Dear John

In April 1971 you testified as a Naval officer before Congress, giving the North Vietnamese what they hadn't gotten from American POWs in Hanoi: a confession of war crimes. According to Senator John McCain (14 May 1973 US News & World Report) your testimony was "the most effective propaganda they had to use against us." Your photograph is displayed in the Vietnamese Communist War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City www.WinterSoldier.com in the room of tribute to the American anti-war protestors who helped the North Vietnamese win the war. North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap wrote in his memoir in 1985 that if it weren't for anti-war activists such as you and the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, which you led and represented, they would have surrendered; but as a result of your activism and that of others like yourself, American POWs stayed in prison longer, they were tortured longer, the war lasted longer, America surrendered, and thousands more Americans and Viets died. You gave aid and comfort to the enemy.

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.

The United States Constitution, Article 14, Section 3, provides that: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President or Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States . . . who, having previously taken an oath . . . as an officer of the United States . . . shall have . . . given aid and comfort to the enemies thereof."

The law is perfectly clear. You have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, as a Naval officer, as a Senator, and you seek to do so again as President. To uphold the US Constitution, Article 14, Section 3, you must resign from the Senate, and resign your presidential candidacy. Your presidency would be a violation of the US Constitution, Article 14, Section 3.

Very truly yours,

Raymond S. Kraft
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 5:06:32 PM EST
do you think that they would listen??


no, this would go straight to the paper shreader.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 5:14:44 PM EST
All well and good, except there is no Article 14 in the Constitution. Do us all a favor and do some basic research before posting such utter bullshit.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 5:15:34 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2004 5:15:58 PM EST by Airwolf]
.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 5:25:37 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2004 5:26:13 PM EST by painrx]

Originally Posted By Nimrod1193:
All well and good, except there is no Article 14 in the Constitution. Do us all a favor and do some basic research before posting such utter bullshit.



Amendment XIV

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

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.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

*Changed by section 1 of the 26th amendment.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 5:31:20 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2004 5:43:59 PM EST by panzersergeant]

Originally Posted By Nimrod1193:
All well and good, except there is no Article 14 in the Constitution. Do us all a favor and do some basic research before posting such utter bullshit.



Amendment 14, 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. "

Nimrod, go to school and learn something about the "bullshit" of which you speak.

ETA beat to the keyboard by painrx!

ETAA I meant "Amendment!"

Link Posted: 10/11/2004 5:35:35 PM EST
Someone should take that letter and find a federal judge.


-LS
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 5:36:04 PM EST

Originally Posted By panzersergeant:

Originally Posted By Nimrod1193:
All well and good, except there is no Article 14 in the Constitution. Do us all a favor and do some basic research before posting such utter bullshit.



Article 14, 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. "

Nimrod, go to school and learn something about the "bullshit" of which you speak.

ETA beat to the keyboard by painrx!




Not knowing there was no article 14 doesn't shoot your theory completely in the head, but it does cast some doubt on your legal theory...answer me this - with a republican majority, if they could kick him out based on this, don't you think they would have done it already?
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 5:37:18 PM EST
I do beleive there is some Ownage going on here.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 5:37:37 PM EST
... bump for exposure, this is not a red herring fellas!
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 5:38:01 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2004 5:38:39 PM EST by Nimrod1193]
Call me picky, but if the writer meant the 14th Amendment, he should've said the 14th Amendment. When the writer speaks of an Article 14 of the Constitution and I know that there are only seven articles, I get the impression that the writer doesn't know what he is talking about.

That said, the text is rougly as quoted in the letter. I apologize for jumping the gun.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 5:38:05 PM EST
October surprise?

Link Posted: 10/11/2004 5:38:12 PM EST

Originally Posted By Nimrod1193:
All well and good, except there is no Article 14 in the Constitution. Do us all a favor and do some basic research before posting such utter bullshit.



How embarrassing you don't even know your own Constitution. You are just pathetic.



Link Posted: 10/11/2004 5:41:11 PM EST
As I read it, he never should have been sworn into the senate.

He should be removed from the senate. Removed from the Dem ticket, and let Hillery have her shot.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 5:42:26 PM EST
There is a big difference between articles and ammendments. IIRC, there are only 7 articles in the Constitution.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 5:42:32 PM EST

Originally Posted By Nimrod1193:
Call me picky, but if the writer meant the 14th Amendment, he should've said the 14th Amendment. When the writer speaks of an Article 14 of the Constitution and I know that there are only seven articles, I get the impression that the writer doesn't know what he is talking about.

That said, the text is rougly as quoted in the letter. I apologize for jumping the gun.



Maybe when he quoted it WORD FOR WORD you might have caught on? Nope guess not. You were more interested in being quick to flame and wanted to come out looking like some kind of badass.

BTW, that really sounds like some Kerry shit you just said.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 5:45:09 PM EST

Originally Posted By Adam_White:
There is a big difference between articles and ammendments. IIRC, there are only 7 articles in the Constitution.



Link Posted: 10/11/2004 5:48:36 PM EST
Chill out on nimrod. Although he did sound rather harsh
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 5:50:21 PM EST

Originally Posted By painrx:

Originally Posted By Nimrod1193:
Call me picky, but if the writer meant the 14th Amendment, he should've said the 14th Amendment. When the writer speaks of an Article 14 of the Constitution and I know that there are only seven articles, I get the impression that the writer doesn't know what he is talking about.

That said, the text is rougly as quoted in the letter. I apologize for jumping the gun.



Maybe when he quoted it WORD FOR WORD you might have caught on? Nope guess not. You were more interested in being quick to flame and wanted to come out looking like some kind of badass.

BTW, that really sounds like some Kerry shit you just said.



Actually, he did not quote it word for word; thus his copious use of ellipses. This made it harder (though not impossible, as evidenced by my ARFCOM brethren) to do a text search. Again, I apologize for jumping the gun. If that is not sufficient for you, well, who gives a shit?
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 5:54:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By 1776:
Chill out on nimrod. Although he did sound rather harsh



To a cetain extent I deserved it. I knew that there was no Article 14 to the Constitution, searched for the term enemy (and not the plural) and made a false assumption when I did not find it. I plead guilty and throw myself on the mercy of the court.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 5:54:36 PM EST
Hey now, whoa. Lets back up a second and go back to the task at hand. How do we bring this to the attention of the american people but much more importantly, how do we get this in front of a judge, or someone who would prosecute the matter.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 5:56:17 PM EST
I mean can't we file an injunction to stop him from running for president pending investigation?
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 6:03:44 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2004 6:04:47 PM EST by PAEBR332]
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was specifically written to preclude people who fought for or supported the CONFEDERACY from being elected to Congress or the Presidency. Also, uder a strict reading of the text of the amendment, Kerry never gave aid and comfort to anyone "who engaged in isurrection or rebellion" against the United States. Vietnam was not an insurrection or rebellion.

Sorry, but take a civics class. Then you will not fall for such silly stuff.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 6:13:09 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2004 6:17:18 PM EST by panzersergeant]

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was specifically written to preclude people who fought for or supported the CONFEDERACY from being elected to Congress or the Presidency. Also, uder a strict reading of the text of the amendment, Kerry never gave aid and comfort to anyone "who engaged in isurrection or rebellion" against the United States. Vietnam was not an insurrection or rebellion.

Sorry, but take a civics class. Then you will not fall for such silly stuff.



"...shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

Subject to interpetation. Using your reasoning one could also claim that only "state militia" should be allowed to own firearms.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 6:18:42 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2004 6:19:59 PM EST by PAEBR332]

Originally Posted By panzersergeant:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was specifically written to preclude people who fought for or supported the CONFEDERACY from being elected to Congress or the Presidency. Also, uder a strict reading of the text of the amendment, Kerry never gave aid and comfort to anyone "who engaged in isurrection or rebellion" against the United States. Vietnam was not an insurrection or rebellion.

Sorry, but take a civics class. Then you will not fall for such silly stuff.



Subject to interpetation. Using your reasoning one could also claim that only state "militia" should be allowed to own firearms.



Wrong. Please point out which "rebellion or insurrection agains the same (U.S. Constitution)" John Kerry either a) Participated actively in, or b) Gave aid and comfort to. The War in Vietnam does not qualify as a rebellion or insurrection against the United States. You need to put the amendment into its' proper context in order to avoid pouring meaning never intended into the words.

BTW, the miltia phrase in the Second is the subordinate clause. A proper reading of the text clearly indicates that the right mentioned therein is an individual one. But that is another discussion.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 6:20:04 PM EST
Like Democrats haven't been wiping their ass with the Constitution for the last 40 years or so.

I doubt they even care that there is such a Document.

SG

Link Posted: 10/11/2004 6:30:44 PM EST

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By panzersergeant:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was specifically written to preclude people who fought for or supported the CONFEDERACY from being elected to Congress or the Presidency. Also, uder a strict reading of the text of the amendment, Kerry never gave aid and comfort to anyone "who engaged in isurrection or rebellion" against the United States. Vietnam was not an insurrection or rebellion.

Sorry, but take a civics class. Then you will not fall for such silly stuff.



Subject to interpetation. Using your reasoning one could also claim that only state "militia" should be allowed to own firearms.



Wrong. Please point out which "rebellion or insurrection agains the same (U.S. Constitution)" John Kerry either a) Participated actively in, or b) Gave aid and comfort to. The War in Vietnam does not qualify as a rebellion or insurrection against the United States. You need to put the amendment into its' proper context in order to avoid pouring meaning never intended into the words.

BTW, the miltia phrase in the Second is the subordinate clause. A proper reading of the text clearly indicates that the right mentioned therein is an individual one. But that is another discussion.



"...or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof..."

Link Posted: 10/11/2004 6:37:27 PM EST

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By panzersergeant:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was specifically written to preclude people who fought for or supported the CONFEDERACY from being elected to Congress or the Presidency. Also, uder a strict reading of the text of the amendment, Kerry never gave aid and comfort to anyone "who engaged in isurrection or rebellion" against the United States. Vietnam was not an insurrection or rebellion.

Sorry, but take a civics class. Then you will not fall for such silly stuff.



Subject to interpetation. Using your reasoning one could also claim that only state "militia" should be allowed to own firearms.



Wrong. Please point out which "rebellion or insurrection agains the same (U.S. Constitution)" John Kerry either a) Participated actively in, or b) Gave aid and comfort to. The War in Vietnam does not qualify as a rebellion or insurrection against the United States. You need to put the amendment into its' proper context in order to avoid pouring meaning never intended into the words.

BTW, the miltia phrase in the Second is the subordinate clause. A proper reading of the text clearly indicates that the right mentioned therein is an individual one. But that is another discussion.



Wrong, wrong!

The quote is, "...or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof..."

"...Rebellion or insurrection against the same..." Refers to "...Shall have engaged in..."

There are two separate and distinct ideas being expressed here. The first that one cannot have ENGAGED in a rebellion or insurrection and second, one cannot have given aid and comfort to the "enemies thereof" which refers to the United States, or "States". This concept of enemies of the State is therefore non-specific as to whether it refers to domestic or foreign "enemies" or whether or not these "enemies" have engaged in a rebellion or insurrection.

I can readily see how one might mistakenly think that "thereof" refers to those engaged in an insurrection or rebellion, but it more readily and closely fits with the continued and repeated theme of "The State"
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 6:43:16 PM EST
Can I print this in a school newspaper?
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 6:46:20 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2004 6:47:10 PM EST by panzersergeant]
Thank you, colinjay!!!
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 6:49:29 PM EST
Well, you know what they say:

The Constitution may not be the greatest work ever set to paper,

but it beats whatever it is the government is using these days.

Link Posted: 10/11/2004 6:53:27 PM EST
YEAY! Got him! Now he can't run! So Hillary will have to step in and take over for him at the last minute! Yeah, that'll be an improvement!

Link Posted: 10/11/2004 6:55:37 PM EST

But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.



So, if plausible, do you think Kerry could get a 2/3 vote from each house?
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 7:00:40 PM EST
that is a big n.o.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 7:13:44 PM EST
I didn't think so....
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 8:03:10 PM EST

Originally Posted By painrx:

Originally Posted By Nimrod1193:
All well and good, except there is no Article 14 in the Constitution. Do us all a favor and do some basic research before posting such utter bullshit.



How embarrassing you don't even know your own Constitution. You are just pathetic.

gilbertv.com/coppermine/albums/08272004/normal_anyonecanbhero.jpg

gilbertv.com/coppermine/albums/08182004/owned_tard.jpg



Uh there IS no article 14. Now who's owned?
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 8:12:14 PM EST
now now, everyone.........the trick is to get him kicked out of the running so close to nov 2 that they cannot replace his name on the ballot.



Are we close enough?
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 8:42:36 PM EST
bump
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 2:10:42 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/12/2004 2:11:18 AM EST by PAEBR332]

Originally Posted By colinjay:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By panzersergeant:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was specifically written to preclude people who fought for or supported the CONFEDERACY from being elected to Congress or the Presidency. Also, uder a strict reading of the text of the amendment, Kerry never gave aid and comfort to anyone "who engaged in isurrection or rebellion" against the United States. Vietnam was not an insurrection or rebellion.

Sorry, but take a civics class. Then you will not fall for such silly stuff.



Subject to interpetation. Using your reasoning one could also claim that only state "militia" should be allowed to own firearms.



Wrong. Please point out which "rebellion or insurrection agains the same (U.S. Constitution)" John Kerry either a) Participated actively in, or b) Gave aid and comfort to. The War in Vietnam does not qualify as a rebellion or insurrection against the United States. You need to put the amendment into its' proper context in order to avoid pouring meaning never intended into the words.

BTW, the miltia phrase in the Second is the subordinate clause. A proper reading of the text clearly indicates that the right mentioned therein is an individual one. But that is another discussion.



Wrong, wrong!

The quote is, "...or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof..."

"...Rebellion or insurrection against the same..." Refers to "...Shall have engaged in..."

There are two separate and distinct ideas being expressed here. The first that one cannot have ENGAGED in a rebellion or insurrection and second, one cannot have given aid and comfort to the "enemies thereof" which refers to the United States, or "States". This concept of enemies of the State is therefore non-specific as to whether it refers to domestic or foreign "enemies" or whether or not these "enemies" have engaged in a rebellion or insurrection.

I can readily see how one might mistakenly think that "thereof" refers to those engaged in an insurrection or rebellion, but it more readily and closely fits with the continued and repeated theme of "The State"



sigh

Have either of you two EVER read the Congressional records concerning the framing and passage of the Fourteenth Amendment? I did while working on my PhD in American Constitutional Law and History. This section was SPECIFICALLY framed to disqualify those who participated in the Confederate government or military, or provided aid and comfort to the Confederacy. Yes, yes, I know the word Confederacy does not appear in the text, which is why you need to do a bit more research in order to understand the Framer's intent.

Second, the phrase "Aid and comfort to the enemies" is the Treason definition of Article III, Section 3, and can only be adjudicated in court. One cannot simply declare a person as being in violation of this section. They must be CONVICTED. To convict someone of treason requires that that person either a)Confess in open court, or b)That an overt act of treason (as defined in Article 3 Section 3) was witnesses by at least two people, who then testify in open court.

This silly email in circulation was obviously written by someone with only the most rudimentary understanding of the the Constitution in general, and the 14th Amendment in particular. Don't fall for their sophomoric reasoning.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 2:26:41 AM EST

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
Second, the phrase "Aid and comfort to the enemies" is the Treason definition of Article III, Section 3, and can only be adjudicated in court. One cannot simply declare a person as being in violation of this section. They must be CONVICTED. To convict someone of treason requires that that person either a)Confess in open court, or b)That an overt act of treason (as defined in Article 3 Section 3) was witnesses by at least two people, who then testify in open court.



+1 Kerry hasn't been CONVICTED of anything yet...innocent until PROVEN guilty, remember? Just ask Bill Clinton...
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 2:33:27 AM EST
+1!
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 6:40:04 AM EST
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.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:02:10 AM EST

Originally Posted By panzersergeant:
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.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:17:33 AM EST
Unfortunately, this portion of the Constitution probably doesn't apply since Congress never formally declared war in either VN or Iraq. If I was left to judge, I'd throw it out and I hate Kerry, but the law is the law. No formal declaration of war = No formal treason.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:19:13 AM EST
I still say it's one of the best "Dear John" letters I've ever read!

Link Posted: 10/12/2004 12:51:10 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/12/2004 12:56:37 PM EST by panzersergeant]

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By panzersergeant:
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.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 1:03:43 PM EST
Funny, a legitment piece of information surfaces and all you can do is argue who is the bigger A-hole about symantics.

no wonder we republicans always lose the easy battles and then have to fight the hard ones later.

I dislike the democrats, actually dispise them ,but at least they know how to fight the battle of public opinion and win. something I wish we would learn before it's too late.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 1:12:18 PM EST
remember as kerry said in the debate he "interprets the constitution according to law", so in other words he dont give a shit about it
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 1:22:27 PM EST

Originally Posted By Nimrod1193:
All well and good, except there is no Article 14 in the Constitution. Do us all a favor and do some basic research before posting such utter bullshit.



what a nimrod
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 5:21:17 PM EST

Originally Posted By panzersergeant:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By panzersergeant:
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.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 5:34:59 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/12/2004 5:35:23 PM EST by colinjay]

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By panzersergeant:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By panzersergeant:
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.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top