It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Kerry eligible to be President?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Very questionable indeed. Here is an excerpt from the Provisions of the Elctoral College on the eligibility of Presidential candidates...

Fourteenth Amendment

Section 3. No person shall be... elector of President and Vice President ... 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.

Hasn't Kerry and some of the other jokers in office given aid and comfort to our enemies?




posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
Hasn't Kerry and some of the other jokers in office given aid and comfort to our enemies?


You know, I think you're right.



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Nice RANT......
Kerry is just as uneligible as Bush. They both need to fall down a well.



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 12:08 PM
link   
loopholes gentlemen, loopholes.....

I'm not saying that I know what they are, but if this is brought up in the future, Kerry's people will find a way out.



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by elevatedone
Kerry's people will find a way out.


Just as Bush's massed army of darkness - hmmm, I half-expected the ATS censor to change that to the Republican Party - will get him on the ballot in Illinois. Technicalities, people!

Besides, I'm not sure how one photo of Kerry with an "enemy of the US" is worse than the other candidate being an enemy of the US.

Curious, no?



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Strictly interpreted I think that quite a few people would be ineligible to run for office. It would tend to clean house abit though.



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by StrangeLands
Besides, I'm not sure how one photo of Kerry with an "enemy of the US" is worse than the other candidate being an enemy of the US.


That was Rumsfeld. Sorry if you already knew that and I just misunderstood.

Interestingly enough, the whole Mike Moore 9/11 movie coming out (despite all efforts to the contrary) is supposed to showcase the Bush/Bin Laden enemy of the state relationship. Cheers.

And as I recall, didn't Karl Rove try to paint McCain as one of these nefarious commie lubbers a while back? Begging the question...WHERE DOES THIS STUFF COME FROM?



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 12:35 PM
link   
I wasn't actually thinking about the Moore film, but now you mention it...

I think the reason attacks on "communists" or "enemies of America" are so common on the fringes of American political life is the worst thing an American citizen can be called in unamerican. To be accused of unpatriotic behaviour - or, more specifically, of having sympathy for whichever flavour-of-the-month "Enemy of the States" the dribbling Right has alighted on, from communists to blacks to gays to asians to arabs - is to become a pariah from civilised society.

I'd say it all goes back to the myth that America is the underdog.

Over here in jolly old Blighty, Blair can be called a rioja-gargling pasta monkey who prefers Italy to England, and he replies, "yeah, so? The weather's better, the wine's better, the transport infrastructure's better, and nothing is my fault!"

And we all nod and say, "good point."



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by StrangeLands

Originally posted by elevatedone
Kerry's people will find a way out.


Just as Bush's massed army of darkness - hmmm, I half-expected the ATS censor to change that to the Republican Party - will get him on the ballot in Illinois. Technicalities, people!



I love it, I absolutely love it....

this thread is about Kerry and I should have known that someone would throw President Bush in here somewhere...


I try not to argue politics, so no harm no foul....



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 01:05 PM
link   


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


Kozmo,

If protesting against a war that was made -for unjustified reasons- like 30 years ago stands for actions of insurrection or rebellion against the State, or even to have given comfort to "enemies", then I might add that you are a serious NUTJOB!

I mean come on... can you just try to nuance your views a little bit? Look somewhere in this very same Constitution, and you'll notice that there`s an whole chapter about FREE SPEECH and the freedom of association. Never heard of that? Then perhaps that`s why you see so much politicial ennemies in America...



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Section 3. No person shall be... elector

I don't think this applies in any way to either Bush or Kerry who are electee's


These rules are made for members of the electorol college not the candidates who are bound by the rules as found in the United States constitution.



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Echtelion
I might add that you are a serious NUTJOB!


FYI : Please don't attack other posters.



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Nice red tag you have there, Echtelion.

As it actually pertains to the comment you made above, I would ask casual readers to determine whom your comment about a "nutjob" would have offended. I don't see it any more than I see spurious arguments against a Bush opponent bringing an end to the Vietnam nonsense affecting the guy's chances.

What desperate ploys, I wonder who came up with the original joke?



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

Originally posted by kozmo
Hasn't Kerry and some of the other jokers in office given aid and comfort to our enemies?


You know, I think you're right.



rumsfeld isnt president. wanna try again????



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 02:03 PM
link   

some of the other jokers in office


No-one said Rumsfeld was president. But he is both a "joker" and "in office", so I guess he qualifies.



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by StrangeLands

some of the other jokers in office


No-one said Rumsfeld was president. But he is both a "joker" and "in office", so I guess he qualifies.


I think that Rumsfeld was appointed to his position, not ELECTED !

I could be wrong though...



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Although I did intend this to illicit a serious debate on the merits of our candidates, I had no idea that it would inflame so many people... politically that is. For that I sincerely apologize. The last thing that I want is to polorize the forum to the extent that we corrode our ability to enter in retional conversation about who is or is not fit to be the leader of the free world.

One poster, I forget who, did, in fact, get it right... This Ammendment addresses ELECTORs and not electees. However, to wit, our electees are also electors and under FEC governing statutes, such disqualification would amply apply. That being said, after extensive research on the matter I was not bale to locate one single federal statute that actually defined the act of giving "Aid and/or comfort to our enemies."

Ok, now to debate the true issue at hand... Dems will see Bush to a fault while Repubs will view Kerry to a fault. Personally, based on past policies or practices I could easily see where either of these individuals could be viewed as giving aid and/or comfort to our enemies. That being said, does this not alert anyone to the fact that we have a very broken political system? One which forces the electorate to vote for the lesser of two evils as opposed to the best qualified candidate?

Does anyone see how both the Democrats and the Republicans are using a "Divide and conquer" strategy to manipulate the two party system to both of their ultimate benefits? I mean, really, what are the real differences between Kerry and Bush? Other than a few personal disagreements, disguised as partisanship, how are they fundamentally different? Do either of these two guys have the average American's best interest in mind?

I was trying to use sarcasm to incite that type of debate. I failed and I apologize.



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Echtelion



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


Kozmo,

If protesting against a war that was made -for unjustified reasons- like 30 years ago stands for actions of insurrection or rebellion against the State, or even to have given comfort to "enemies", then I might add that you are a serious NUTJOB!

I mean come on... can you just try to nuance your views a little bit? Look somewhere in this very same Constitution, and you'll notice that there`s an whole chapter about FREE SPEECH and the freedom of association. Never heard of that? Then perhaps that`s why you see so much politicial ennemies in America...


Using your logic, one would have the ability to yell, "FIRE" in a mall or a crowded theatre; or incite violence through hate speech without reprise. Yet we know this to not be true or accurate. Yes, etchelion, there is freedom of speech, however, there are limits to that freedom and an implied responsibility that comes with said freedom. However, that was not the point of my original post. Please see my post below labeled "WOW!". Thanks.

BTW... I may be a NUTJOB, but I'm a good NUTJOB



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 12:13 AM
link   


Dems will see Bush to a fault while Repubs will view Kerry to a fault. Personally, based on past policies or practices I could easily see where either of these individuals could be viewed as giving aid and/or comfort to our enemies. That being said, does this not alert anyone to the fact that we have a very broken political system? One which forces the electorate to vote for the lesser of two evils as opposed to the best qualified candidate?


Kozmo, yes, indeed, the US political system is broken, or how I'd rather say JAMMED. So it is unfortunately to the electoral systems of many "democratic" countries, such as Canada, where voters are actualy being given the choice between a bunch of overly-corrupt demagogs and a crazy fascist redneck who wants to make Canada exactly like Bush's US (which is totally impossible, by the way).

Also, I do recognize that you have wisely nuanced your opinion, and on my part I guess it would be suitable for me to express my apoogies to you for having said that you were a nutjob.

So sorry, I don`t think you're a nutjob after all!



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 08:21 AM
link   
"Jammed" is a very good descriptor for the current plight of our political system. Question: How do we un-jam it?



new topics




 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join