A new article that is circulating in Republican email circuits is “John Kerry’s Constitutional Conundrum.” The short of it is that it accuses Kerry of giving “aid and comfort” to the North Vietnamese and Iraqi insurgents and argues that due to this Kerry is constitutionally barred from holding office under the Fourteenth Amendment’s anti-Confederate clause.
John Kerry took an oath as a naval officer, before he became a prominent anti-war activist. He took another oath to protect and defend the Constitution when he was sworn in as a senator, before he called America’s war on terrorism in Iraq “the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.” Now, he seeks to become president, and commander in chief, and will, if he is elected, take the oath again, to protect and defend the Constitution.
But if he fulfills that oath, as he should, if he is elected, and if he is to defend the Constitution, then his first official act as President must be to resign from the office of president, because he is barred from the presidency by Article 14, Section 3 [sic], of the Constitution of the United States, which he will have sworn (again) to protect and defend.
This logic is so bad, only a neo-con could come up with it. (Are we seriously expected to follow the constitutional advice of someone who can’t even get his citation correct?) It is sad that so many neo-con’s think that people who disagree with them politically are un-American and traitorous. Political dissent is as American as apple pie. Democracy requires political diversity. This nationalistic streak that is running through the Republicans right now is troublesome. The fact that so many otherwise smart people are susceptible to the nationalistic propaganda troubles me. Whipping up a nationalistic fervor to crush dissent and common sense is the first step towards a totalitarian regime. We saw how it worked with Fascists. (Goodwin’s Law be damned.)
John Kerry has no constitutional conundrum since he never worked for enemies of the United States. Giving aid would have required him to have provided funding or military advice; giving comfort would have required him to have provided shelter. Political disputes are neither. But if we were to apply the overtly broad interpretation of “aid and comfort,” then Bush would be in constitutional trouble. It was his predetermined decision to invade Iraq that destabilized the region and brought new recruits and new targets to terrorist networks. (Wonder why Iran endorsed Bush over Kerry?) It is funny to see Republicans attack John Kerry’s distinguished military record, since their boy has none to speak of. Kerry saw combat; Bush went AWOL from non-combat duty. There little high ground for Republicans here.
But I do like the idea that a politician should resign if he cannot uphold the constitution. That would eliminate most conservatives and radical liberals in government. Anybody who opposes abortion rights, civil liberties, moderate gun ownership, church-and-state separation, innocent until proven guilty, etc. would have to go. It’d gut the entire Bush Administration and then some. We could get rid of activist politicians who pass laws and make policies that they know are unconstitutional. We could stop governments from wasting tax payer dollars on defending losing battles.
I have no party affiliation. I care about civil liberties, federalism, church and state separation, education, science, and the national debt. The Bush administration has not done anything in the last four years to earn my vote.
