PDA

View Full Version : John Kerry vs. The 14th Amendment



John Ashcroft
09-13-2004, 09:45 PM
In 1971, upon returning from four months service in Vietnam and while still a Naval officer, John Kerry testified openly, publicly, before Congress, that he and everyone else serving in Vietnam had committed atrocities, that they were all war criminals.

Kerry quickly became active and influential in the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, organizing and leading anti-war protests. Kerry wrote a book, "The New Soldier," that set out his criticism of America's war against the malignancy of communism. John Kerry went to Paris where he conducted private, illegal, diplomacy with the North Vietnamese, and returned to advocate that America surrender to North Vietnam, and on our enemies' terms. He became an advocate for America's enemy.

The North Vietnamese seized on John Kerry's book and speeches and used them for psychological warfare, torture, against American POW's in Hanoi. Kerry's anti-war words and deeds helped turn America's military victory into a political defeat, and North Vietnam's military defeat into a political victory.

Kerry's actions were doubtless instrumental in prolonging the war, and adding to the number of Americans wounded in action, and to those killed in action, whose names are now engraved on the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington, D.C. - The Wall.

This is not rumor, nor speculation, nor spin. Kerry did all these things openly, publicly, proudly, intentionally, willfully, and deliberately, in the full light of day and history.

He did these things with an obvious and express intention to impede America's war effort, and assist its enemy. It is common, public knowledge, and fully, indisputably documented. John Kerry, while an officer of the United States, knowingly, willfully, deliberately, intentionally gave aid and comfort to America's enemy in a time of war.

The Constitution of the United States, Article 14, Section 3 (also known as Amendment 14, Section 3) states in relevant part:

"No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military . . . 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 . . ."

When John Kerry became a Naval officer, he took an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States. Afterward, upon his return from Viet Nam, he openly, publicly, and proudly, gave aid and comfort to America's enemies.

Having given aid and comfort to America's enemy, while a Naval officer of the United States, John Kerry is clearly and unequivocally disqualified, barred, by Article 14, Section 3, of the Constitution, from serving as a Senator or as President.

When John Kerry was elected to the Senate, he again took an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution. Having taken that oath, I believe, he is now bound by that oath to resign from the Senate, and to resign his presidential candidacy, since he is not qualified to serve in the Senate, or as President, even if he is elected.

Raymond S. Kraft is a writer and recovering lawyer living in Northern California. He may be reached at rskraft@vfr.net.

Link:
here (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/9/13/114117.shtml)

FORD
09-13-2004, 10:22 PM
Al Qaeda is a subsidiary of Bush Criminal Empire Inc.

That's no freeptard fantasy, but the reality, with proven family connections going back decades.

ELVIS
09-14-2004, 01:05 AM
You're full of shit...

knuckleboner
09-14-2004, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by John Ashcroft


Raymond S. Kraft is a writer and recovering lawyer living in Northern California.




says it all right there. not really a good lawyer...




John Kerry, while an officer of the United States, knowingly, willfully, deliberately, intentionally gave aid and comfort to America's enemy in a time of war.
[/quote


uh...yeah, there is a TREMENDOUS amount of spin here. this assumes that kerry's motive was to give aid and comfort to the enemy.

it's entirely possible for a vietnam vet to come back and believe that the war was wrong and that the soldiers needed to come home, rather than die in east asia.

you know, somebody who made statements like these:

[quote]Now we are told that the men who fought there must watch quietly while American lives are lost so that we can exercise the incredible arrogance of Vietnamizing the Vietnamese.

and


Well, Senator, frankly it does not appeal to me if American men have to continue to die when they don't have to

(yes, it's from kerry's 1971 senate testimony. (http://www.c-span.org/vote2004/jkerrytestimony.asp)

of course, i certainly don't agree with everything kerry said in the testimony. but at the same time, just because the north koreans chose to use his words and testimony against Americans doesn't mean that that's what kerry really intended.



(and of course, mr. AG, i'm surprised at you; promoting judicial activism like this. it's clear that the framers of amendment (always known as "amenedment," never "article" 14, like this yahoo suggests) 14 were referring to civil war confederate secessionists. you'd have to interpret that amendment to get it to fit in later instances...;))

John Ashcroft
09-14-2004, 11:04 AM
I interpret the ammendment as specifically prohibiting the "New JFK" from holding public office... :D

Anyway, I'll never believe that Kerry's distortions and lies following Vietnam were fabricated with his fellow Veteran's (or America's) best interests in mind.

You don't label Vets as War Criminals to protect them from an abusive Government. Sorry, no one will ever convince me otherwise.

knuckleboner
09-14-2004, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by John Ashcroft
I interpret the ammendment as specifically prohibiting the "New JFK" from holding public office



well...you are the top attorney in the land. i suppose that ruling stands.:D



and yeah, i agree, kerry's testimony was a little over the line. no question. and yes, i think his motive of attack on the political leadership was probably just as strong as his concern for the wellbeing of the troops.

but even his war crimes allegations were really more leveled at the higher ups, the guys who orchestrated "free fire zones."

mind you, again, i'm not saying kerry's testimony was 100% A.OK. i understand his point. and yes, i'm sure in the 500,000 troops over there, some did commit war crimes. but i also think kerry wrongly characterized it as he did. no question.

still i'm really not sure it's quite as bad as intentionally giving aid and comfort to the enemy...

John Ashcroft
09-14-2004, 01:57 PM
Well, what were his motives in your opinion?

And if one commits aid to the enemy in the pursuit of personal ambitions, isn't it still aid to the enemy?

JCOOK
09-14-2004, 02:06 PM
Im' not naive enough to believe that there were not atrocities committed by both sides in Viet Nam,there have been atrocities in every war. But for Herman to make blanket statemenets about millions that served is absolutely ludicrius and wrong.He admitted that he himself had committed these atrocities,why not stand trial for YOUR OWN ACTIONS Johnny Reb?

knuckleboner
09-14-2004, 02:53 PM
my guess is his motives were to end the war he thought was wrong and to vilify the leaders who got us into the war. and yes, to further his own ambitions as well.


and yes, aid to the enemy for your own ambition is still aid to the enemy.


but i strongly doubt that kerry's goal was to help the vietcong. nor, do i think he took his actions knowing the they would be used directly against American soldiers.



mostly, i like poking at these kind of articles were the guy goes, "this is not...spin." and then proceeds to lump a tremendous amount of spin and hyperbole.

i definitely agree that there are plenty of valid criticisms of kerry's anti-war antics. but calling them a violation of the 14th amendment isn't really one of them...(unless the author's ann coulter;))

JCOOK
09-14-2004, 03:00 PM
Again he himself admitted comitting these acts.He should have been punished back then in a military court.

John Ashcroft
09-14-2004, 04:01 PM
Well, he certainly won't be elected President anytime soon.

It'd be sweet if he also got the boot from his Senate seat in Taxachussets. When's the seat up?

knuckleboner
09-14-2004, 04:24 PM
2008.

just in time to ride hillary's coattails...;)


(and no, i'm not the biggest fan of hillary...)