SwiftVets.com

[gfarris98]

Will some please file suit in federal court to get an injunction barring him from running for president!!!

Why hasn't anyone else seen this,

Swift vets feel and caim John Kerry aided and abetted the enemy after his returm from the Vietnam war. The 14th amendment to the constitution clearly states that anyone who gives aid and comfort to the enemy after having taken an oath to defend the constitution, be barred from ever having an elected or sworn post ever again.

The purpose of the amendment was to stop confederates from going back to any old jobs after the civil war. But it's still the supreme law of the land. It's section 3 of an amendment that no body reads or uses anymore. I think the last time it was cited in a supreme court case was in the 1920's. That's why nobody has seen it.

Some people say "well doesn't he ned to be convicted?" well I have two answers for that. 1) No, not every confederate was tried for treason (were any for that matter?) 2) That's not your decision to make, It's up to the courts to decide. But they cannot give opinion until SOMEONE FILES SUIT.

The text of the law:

No person shall... hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, ...who, having previously taken an oath,... as an officer of the United States, ... 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.

link for the whole text:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0749825.html

[LewWaters]

This has been discussed here several times and some have looked into it. If you do a search of the site, I'm sure you will find threads that have far more legal knowledge than I do that explains it better than I ever could.
_________________
Clark County Conservative

[jimlarsen]

I'm not a lawyer. But, you raise the question of court action focusing on the aid and compor, without a conviction of treason, which seems to be a slightly different approach from the other threads.

I think there would be little use in raising such a charge. First, the citizens of Mass. have for 20 years accepted Kerry as their Senator in spite of the things he did. This, I suspect, would be seen by the court as a strong indication that the public didn't feel that Kerry went that far. An election is, afterall, a poll of jurors (the public) concerning the qualifications and fitness of a candidate.

Second, the Senate has seated Kerry without censore, again indicating that his actions didn't go that far. And, when the Senate did censore Kerry it was for crossing the line seperating the powers of government, not for aiding or giving comfort to an enemy, again indicating that the Senate didn't see Kerry's Viet Nam actions as directly "aiding and giving comfort".

Third, it seems to me that the charge of treason has more going for it than "unfit for office", even though the evidence would probably have to be stronger for the treason conviction. But, treason is a crime and not subject to public opinion or Senate approval. And, strong evidence of treason (ie. giving specific information to the enemy which enabled the enemy to gain an advantage) would weigh heavily on the public mind whether or not he was eventially convicted.

[gfarris98]

[Navy_Navy_Navy]