Hillary cannot become president

[Wild Cobra]

Well, I think I know the answer...

It is unconstitutional for a woman to be president.

Yep... that's right... Look at the havoc it will cause if she's the demoncraps nominee...

I haven't verified this yet and I plan to, but I remember the text well enough to be secure in this legal interpretation. I'm sure anyone who disagree with me will look this up as well. I heard this argument today on the Victoria Taft radio show.

Ready?

Under the qualifiers for president, it states things like "he," "him," etc. The constitution has no blanket statement for references of gender being both male and female when the masculine form is used. There has been no amendment to change the qualifications to include "her," "she," etc.

Can anyone tell me a valid reason why I am wrong about this technicality?

Now this is something that I thing needs to be corrected. We need a constitutional amendment to include the finer sex to be equal in all aspects of constitutional law.

However...

The black and white of our highest law should not be violated to place a woman in a position that law dictates is a man's job!

Until this is changed, we cannot have a woman as president.

[fyatuk]

:lol

Because until the PC movement, "he", "him", etc were accepted as the generic/gender neutral pronouns as well as the masculine. This is actually what I was taught in school in the 80's, and most cultures on earth have had at least similar stances at some point in their evolution.

It's the same in japanese where the pronouns for referring to someone who could be either male, female, or a mixed group is the masculine. It's a hangup from our paternalistic ancestry.

Now, obviously, that is not what the Framers meant (they probably never even considered that a woman might want to be President, considering the gender roles back then), but that's how the Constitution is interpreted.

There's similar issues in the other branches as well. It's less common, since the other branches consist of groups, and "they" is common. But for example when discussing the President Pro Temp of the Senate, "He" is used.

I suppose if you want, the government can waste it's time passing an amendment that says "All mention of "he" and "him" in the United States Consititution and its Amendments shall be interpreted as "he or she" and "him or her"." It's easier just to reinterpret it as "he" being a masculine dominant but gender neutral term.

[101A]

Can anyone tell me a valid reason why I am wrong about this technicality?
Because until the 70's "he, him, his, etc.." were the accepted form of pronoun when referring to all people; only since then has such writing been considered insensitive and inaccurate. Any conservative justice, looking for "original intent" would read the constitution that way, and a liberal justice isn't going to give the argument any consideration whatsoever...9-0.

[Don Quixote]

Would this argument hold water if the woman in question were a qualified conservative?

[Lebowski Brickowski]

Since when does the Constitution matter?

[smeagol]

Great thread :tu






(where the fuck is my blue ink?)

[Oh, Gee!!]

The US Constitution also spells Congress wrong (Congrefs).

[ChumpDumper]

Damn, the board righties are scurred.

[Lebowski Brickowski]

That's the Conftitution to you, buddy.

[Oh, Gee!!]

nowhere in the conftitution does it say that fhe can be president

[clambake]

thats turrible.

[braeden0613]

The US Constitution also spells Congress wrong (Congrefs).
lol i assume you are kidding, that f looking letter is how they wrote the lower-case s.

[Extra Stout]

lol i assume you are kidding, that f looking letter is how they wrote the lower-case s.
in the 18f fentury everybody talked wif a wifp

[Nbadan]

...too bad Hillary has already thought of this...

http://www.scpronet.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/hillary20urinal.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

in the 18f fentury everybody talked wif a wifp
Yep, allot of people were missing teeth. All a dentist could do was pull them, or make wooden replacements.

Back to the black and white technicalities...

Anyone know a single proper legal argument that says "SHE" can be president?

Now "HE" also is found in Article I, but only that "HE" must reside in the state for being a congress member. I guess that why Hillary gets away with being a senator in NY when not really living there beforehand, because "She" and gender neutral isn't specified for state residency.

No gender is given in the judicial section, dammit. I would advocate removing Ruth Vader Ginsburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg) now! An activist should have never been confirmed to the highest court.

[ChumpDumper]

Anyone know a single proper legal argument that says "SHE" can be president?Ferraro already ran for VP. Precedent.

[Wild Cobra]

Ferraro already ran for VP. Precedent.
So, there was a supreme court case? They said it was OK?

[FromWayDowntown]

The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause would be a good starting point for a legal argument, insofar as it provides, in part, that: "No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." A refusal to permit a woman to attain a public office that can be held by a man would seem to deny that woman "equal protection" of the laws. It would be asinine to think that States are precluded from denying citizens equal protection of the law, but that the federal government can discriminate at will.

Legality aside, the clearer argument grows out of the fact that Article I of the Constitution expressly refers to Representatives with masculine pronouns ("No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.", Article I, section 2) and Senators with masculine pronouns ("No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen." Article I, section 3). Quite clearly, we've grown to accept the idea that in Article I, the use of the masculine pronoun is inclusive and general, not exclusive and specific; thus, there is no debate about the constitutional qualification of women to serve in Congress. In that light, it would be absurd to argue that Article II's qualification provisions mean something different than Article I.

The best argument is one that says it's really freakin' stupid to read the Constitution in the way proposed in this thread. The 1828 Webster's Dictionary -- one published not long after the Constitution was written -- provides expressly in describing the use of masculine pronouns that "He, when a substitute for man in its general sense, expressing mankind, is of common gender, representing, like its antecedent, the whole human race." Today's most pervasive style guide, Strunk & White, explains that the use of "he" as a generalization to refer to both men and women: "is a simple, practical convention rooted in the beginnings of the English language."

If you think those historical roots are really so insignificant as to warrant no consideration in construing the language of the Constitution, you're viewpoint strikes me as incredibly unreasonable.

[PixelPusher]

The best argument is one that says it's really freakin' stupid to read the Constitution in the way proposed in this thread. The 1828 Webster's Dictionary -- one published not long after the Constitution was written -- provides expressly in describing the us of masculine pronouns that "He, when a substitute for man in its general sense, expressing mankind, is of common gender, representing, like its antecedent, the whole human race." Today's most pervasive style guide, Strunk & White, explains that the use of "he" as a generalization to refer to both men and women: "is a simple, practical convention rooted in the beginnings of the English language."

If you think those historical roots are really so insignificant as to warrant no consideration in construing the language of the Constitution, you're viewpoint strikes me as incredibly unreasonable.
I dunno...sounds like soft-headed, "living constitution" fluff to me. WC was just offering a "strict constitutionalist" viewpoint. :lol

[Wild Cobra]

I dunno...sounds like soft-headed, "living constitution" fluff to me. WC was just offering a "strict constitutionalist" viewpoint. :lol
The he meaning she? I agree that a dictionary may say such a thing, however, I'll bet you will not find that as an accepted definition of the period. I haven't been able to yet. I have no problem with a woman being president, I just don' want that woman to be. I see this as a good technicality right now, but we must in all fairness, set this right. In my opinion, a constitutional amendment is the only way.

Yes, I am taking the 'strict' interpretation. This is a point that can be litigated. It needs to be resolved. I am not aware of it ever being tested. I say, test it now... Maybe we can avoid having a "cunt in chief."

[FromWayDowntown]

The he meaning she? I agree that a dictionary may say such a thing, however, I'll bet you will not find that as an accepted definition of the period. I haven't been able to yet. I have no problem with a woman being president, I just don' want that woman to be. I see this as a good technicality right now, but we must in all fairness, set this right. In my opinion, a constitutional amendment is the only way.

Yes, I am taking the 'strict' interpretation. This is a point that can be litigated. It needs to be resolved. I am not aware of it ever being tested. I say, test it now... Maybe we can avoid having a "cunt in chief."

Then what of the masculine pronouns in Article I?

Honestly, the universal meaning of "he" in that period is quite well-established; unless, of course, you choose to believe that Strunk & White simply have no idea what they're talking about.

There's a difference between "strictly interpreting" the Constitution and "offering absolutely absurd views of the Constitution to push my agenda."

Litigate away -- there's no way that any Court in the United States will conclude that the "he" pronoun in Article II is exclusive.

[Wild Cobra]

The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause would be a good starting point for a legal argument, insofar as it provides, in part, that: "No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." A refusal to permit a woman to attain a public office that can be held by a man would seem to deny that woman "equal protection" of the laws. It would be asinine to think that States are precluded from denying citizens equal protection of the law, but that the federal government can discriminate at will.

Becoming president isn't a protection. It's an elected honor.

Now in section II of the 14th:


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.



Legality aside, the clearer argument grows out of the fact that Article I of the Constitution expressly refers to Representatives with masculine pronouns ("No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.", Article I, section 2) and Senators with masculine pronouns ("No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen." Article I, section 3). Quite clearly, we've grown to accept the idea that in Article I, the use of the masculine pronoun is inclusive and general, not exclusive and specific; thus, there is no debate about the constitutional qualification of women to serve in Congress. In that light, it would be absurd to argue that Article II's qualification provisions mean something different than Article I.

I already addressed that. The particular statement indicates a male running for such office must be from that state. It doesn't indicate a female must be from the state.

Yes, a funny way of interpreting it from today's viewpoint, but that is a black and white technicality.



The best argument is one that says it's really freakin' stupid to read the Constitution in the way proposed in this thread. The 1828 Webster's Dictionary -- one published not long after the Constitution was written -- provides expressly in describing the use of masculine pronouns that "He, when a substitute for man in its general sense, expressing mankind, is of common gender, representing, like its antecedent, the whole human race." Today's most pervasive style guide, Strunk & White, explains that the use of "he" as a generalization to refer to both men and women: "is a simple, practical convention rooted in the beginnings of the English language."

Oh... My old dictionary specifies the terms as gender specific. I'll bet the dictionary refers to it's own works within, and it does use the word 'general.' There is nothing general about the constitution. The framers were well educated and it is a specific legal document. Our highest of laws. You don't just assume they meant something.



If you think those historical roots are really so insignificant as to warrant no consideration in construing the language of the Constitution, you're viewpoint strikes me as incredibly unreasonable.

Historically, women didn't vote and didn't hold office. Why is my viewpoint of the period so unreasonable?

I see it as it being unreasonable to consider women in office back then.

If you re-read my posting, I disagree with the premise that a woman cannot be president. I believe someone needs to take charge and make an amendment to clarify this, so women can be president without an asshole like myself making this technicality known.

[FromWayDowntown]

Wild Cobra is going to get his wish (and perhaps we've outed Wild Cobra ss an 80-year old denizen of Reno, Nevada). In any event, this asinine position is going to be put before a court -- I'm surmising that the filing of the suit lead to the talk radio discussion that provoked this waste of time thread.

Two notes about the lawsuit:

1. Who in the hell is the defendant? The United States?

2. If this guy has a lawyer, the guy should be disbarred for filing a suit in state court alleging claims against the federal government based on interpretations of federal law. For those of rational points of view, it is an absolute certainty that the case will be removed to federal court, where an Article III judge (alas, it would not appear a female judge!!) will get to render summary judgment as to these claims, giving Wild Cobra the satisfaction of knowing that the issue has been litigated.

Anyway:

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1207651597223&rss=newswire

Lawsuit Claims U.S. Constitution Bans Woman President

A Reno, Nev., man has filed a state lawsuit claiming that the U.S. Constitution would have to be amended to allow Sen. Hillary Clinton to appear on the presidential ballot.

Douglas Wallace, 80, argues that because the constitution refers to "he" and "his" in describing presidential duties, a woman can't hold the office.

"The use of female gendered pronouns 'she' or 'her' are not present in the document, making it conclusive that the framers never intended that a woman would be president of the United States," Wallace wrote in the suit.

Legal scholars called the suit "amusing" but without merit.

"The use of the masculine pronoun is a relic of the period," Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School, told the Reno Gazette-Journal.

"The constitution has been amended to expressly incorporate women into the political system. No court would subscribe to this meritless argument," he said.

[FromWayDowntown]

Becoming president isn't a protection. It's an elected honor.

Denying someone the opportunity to seek an elected office would be denying them equal protection of the laws, your stilted view of the Constitution aside. Equal protection is not just a matter of affording citizens shields against governmental power -- and, in any event, equal protection would be a shield against a law categorically prohibiting a group of people from seeking a particular office. Obviously, equal protection doesn't assure the right to seek office to all; those who are not of a certain age or who have particular disqualifications are precluded, but because there are rational reasons for imposing those limits -- there is no rational reason for denying a person the right to seek an office simply because that person lacks a Y chromosome.


Noe in section II of the 14th:

A. Are you suggesting that the word choices of the framers of the 14th Amendment are indicative of the word choices of the framers of Article II. That's an interesting take, given how far apart in time those two things occurred.

B. I'd actually argue that the use of the term "male inhabitants" in that provision strongly suggests that the drafters of the 14th Amendment understood that the use of masculine pronouns did not necessarily indicate male specificity. Moreover, at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified, women did not have the franchise and, thus, the need to assure protection to male inhabitants of those states was the need addressed by Section 2 of the amendment.


I already addressed that. The particular statement indicates a male running for such office must be from that state. It doesn't indicate a female must be from the state.

Yes, a funny way of interpreting it from today's viewpoint, but that is a black and white technicality.

I suppose -- if you choose to read things in wholly irrational ways and reject the historical use of terms. It's not a funny way of interpreting the Constitution; it's laughably asinine and stretches the tenets of strict construction beyond any reasonable limit.


Oh... My old dictionary specifies the terms as gender specific. I'll bet the dictionary refers to it's own works within, and it does use the word 'general.' There is nothing general about the constitution. The framers were well educated and it is a specific legal document. Our highest of laws. You don't just assume they meant something.p.

I'm sure every dictionary has a definition of "he" as being male-specific. But it's also true that the word has historically been used far more generally and there is plenty of historical proof to establish that, when used in formal tracts, the conventional usage was the general.

In light of that truth, if I'm assuming the word "he" means something, you are too. I, at least, have history on my side.

And a great deal about the Constitution is general; that's the beauty of the document -- it's generality allows for great flexibility over changing times.


Historically, women didn't vote and didn't hold office. Why is my viewpoint of the period so unreasonable?

I'd say that your view is primarily unreasonable because the Constitution is general in so many senses. The education of the framers almost undoubtedly would have led them to consider the possibility that women might someday (somehow) attain the franchise and be able seek office. Using "he" in a generic sense is far more in line with the generalities used by the Framers and their forward-thinking approach to the document.


If you re-read my posting, I disagree with the premise that a woman cannot be president. I believe someone needs to take charge and make an amendment to clarify this, so women can be president without an asshole like myself making this technicality known.

Again, the beauty of the Constitution lies in its generality. There's been little need to amend the document (27 amendments in almost 230 years is an incredibly small number) and there's no need to amend the document to make clear something that has never before been disputed.

[Yonivore]

I give you amendment the 14th:


"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.
Can't make 'em and, if made, can't enforce 'em.

[xrayzebra]

Some say she is a he. Well, not physically, but sexually. Does
that count?

[Wild Cobra]

I give you amendment the 14th:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

Can't make 'em and, if made, can't enforce 'em.
It says STATE. The constitution part I'm referring to is federal. Laws cannot override the constitution anyway.

Way Down...

The article gives an opinion of legal scholars. That doesn't mean they are right. It also does specifically say "The use of the masculine pronoun is a relic of the period." They can call it that all they want. It was also a fact that women were not allowed to do several things. They did not by culture write anything where the masculine form also meant a feminine form. They were too proper to do so. Just because our acceptance is different, our highest law still does not reflect that point and needs to be amended. I 'm not aware of any "auto-change" function in any legal writings.


The constitution has been amended to expressly incorporate women into the political system. No court would subscribe to this meritless argument

This is not true. It's purpose was to grant women the right to vote. That is not automatically all inclusive. It is the courts responsibility to rule by the black and white of the text. Not by what we want it to mean. That would really throw a monkey wrench into contractual arrangements if courts did not rule by the verbatim of the text.

[Wild Cobra]

Back to back in the 14th:


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.

Why would the writer use male in one and person in the other if it wasn't meant to have a different meaning?

I continue to say it was intentional that the president be a male.

[ChumpDumper]

So, there was a supreme court case? They said it was OK?No need. Nobody brought it up because it would have been incredibly stupid to do so.

Would you like the Republicans to be remembered forever as the party that tried to deny women the presidency on a technicality?

Yes, you would. You are that desperate.

[Wild Cobra]

No need. Nobody brought it up because it would have been incredibly stupid to do so.

It's not stupid. That's just an opinion. It does deserve a fair legal determination.



Would you like the Republicans to be remembered forever as the party that tried to deny women the presidency on a technicality?

Absolutely not. I'm glad this guy from Nevada is doing his thing.



Yes, you would. You are that desperate.

Would you please stop implying things that are not so? I have explained how I see this as something needing to be changed. Sure, I'll take the techicality, but I wish it applied to the judicial branch to get Ruth Vader Ginsburg out.

Come on Chump, you've proven you can be better than to assume such things.

Anyway, I think Hillary would be so much easier to beat than Obama. She has such a history of corruption, you know it will resurface. Obama probably has little history of anything bad. He is also one of the best orators in politics in a long time.

In my first posting:


I heard this argument today on the Victoria Taft radio show.

It was the court case that is already started, the one linked by Way Down:

Lawsuit Claims U.S. Constitution Bans Woman President

The Associated Press
April 9, 2008 (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1207651597223&rss=newswire)

I would have linked the story on the first posting, but I came up blank with my searches. I did hear it was a case in Nevada. I just didn't remember any key phrase or the guys name to get a valid hit from a search engine. No matter how I worded my search, I received thousands of hits not related.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Can I buy some pot off of you, WC?

[ChumpDumper]

It's not stupid. That's just an opinion. It does deserve a fair legal determination.It's a fantastically stupid opinion.



Absolutely not. I'm glad this guy from Nevada is doing his thing.You would love it as long as it meets your strictly partisan purposes.



Would you please stop implying things that are not so?Would you please stop misusing the word imply?
I have explained how I see this as something needing to be changed. Sure, I'll take the techicality, but I wish it applied to the judicial branch to get Ruth Vader Ginsburg out.You only give a shit because Democrats and appointees of Democrats are involved. There is no other reason you are bringing this up.


Come on Chump, you've proven you can be better than to assume such things.Motives are easily spotted.


Anyway, I think Hillary would be so much easier to beat than Obama.Then quit bitching.

[BonnerDynasty]

lolz, I loves me some cackle!

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/04/11/sot.clinton.laughs.off.pool

[FromWayDowntown]

Way Down...

The article gives an opinion of legal scholars. That doesn't mean they are right.

I'd hazard a guess that legal scholars are more frequently correct on questions of constitutional scope than either of us are. Frankly, however, this question is ridiculous to the point of being readily answerable by just about any child.

Why is it that you won't deal with the masculine language in Article I? You've still yet to even consider that problem in any of your responses to me or anyone else.


It also does specifically say "The use of the masculine pronoun is a relic of the period." They can call it that all they want. It was also a fact that women were not allowed to do several things. They did not by culture write anything where the masculine form also meant a feminine form.

Source for that last assertion? I'm more readily willing to believe Strunk and White or Webster's than I am you unless you can come forward with some source to suggest that 18th century writers only ever meant a male when using the pronoun "he."


Just because our acceptance is different, our highest law still does not reflect that point and needs to be amended.

Actually, I'd argue to you that our acceptance is different because it actually requires more specificity. When I was a kid, using a male pronoun to describe some indefinite person ("Each student should bring his own lunch," for instance) was common; today, such descriptions are made by using "he or she" or "his or her" or even "their" (shudder). If anything our modern usage strikes me as far more specific than the historical usages of such pronouns.


I 'm not aware of any "auto-change" function in any legal writings. . . . It is the courts responsibility to rule by the black and white of the text. Not by what we want it to mean. That would really throw a monkey wrench into contractual arrangements if courts did not rule by the verbatim of the text.

There's no need to change the document because the word "he" can readily describe both men and women. There's nothing in the text that precludes the understanding that "he" was intended to be a universal pronoun in the sense in which it is used in Article II. Nothing about accepting that understanding threatens to re-write the Constitution -- again, we've lived quite well for many years with Representatives and Senators who weren't men.

For someone who claims to be in favor of the general notion of female presidential candidates, your efforts to debase originalism to some sort of absurd characacture of legal doctrine are rather puzzling, though perhaps indicative of your dizzying intellect.

[DarkReign]

Most pathetic, young padawan. Vader is not amused.

[peewee's lovechild]

Most pathetic, young padawan. Vader is not amused.

Yep.

[Wild Cobra]

Why is it that you won't deal with the masculine language in Article I? You've still yet to even consider that problem in any of your responses to me or anyone else.

My God man.

I answered that at least twice now.

Read away, and ask your questions again, once I know you can comprehend things, I'll take the time to explain other things. I'm not wasting my time with you on stupid questions answered.

[jochhejaam]

Forget about the gender debate, we can't take the chance that, as president, she may not answer the hot-line at 3 a.m. because she thinks she's under sniper fire.

[JoeChalupa]

Well, Obama sure seems to be out to help Hillary. He's toast in PA.

[FromWayDowntown]

My God man.

I answered that at least twice now.

Read away, and ask your questions again, once I know you can comprehend things, I'll take the time to explain other things. I'm not wasting my time with you on stupid questions answered.

How about you address that with something other than the glib nonsense that you've spewed.

I will say this: your reading of the Constitution is undoubtedly unique.

[Don Quixote]

Yes, this notion of reading a masculine meaning into what in the 18th century were gender-neutral pronouns makes those of us who actually believe in "authorial intent" to be profoundly stupid. No legitimate conservative would take such a view, and I would recommend that conservatives here drop it.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, this notion of reading a masculine meaning into what in the 18th century were gender-neutral pronouns makes those of us who actually believe in "authorial intent" to be profoundly stupid. No legitimate conservative would take such a view, and I would recommend that conservatives here drop it.
Then show me some legal items of the period that show they wrote in a gender neutral form. I could be wrong, but nobody has yet persuaded me that they did. Just because it is common now doesn't mean our views can be carried into the past.

Intent is another matter from technicality. I don't think they even considered women could become so prominent in politics. Purpose or lack of foresight? Who knows.

[FromWayDowntown]

Then show me some legal items of the period that show they wrote in a gender neutral form. I could be wrong, but nobody has yet persuaded me that they did. Just because it is common now doesn't mean our views can be carried into the past.

Intent is another matter from technicality. I don't think they even considered women could become so prominent in politics. Purpose or lack of foresight? Who knows.

You seem to have a unique grasp on what the Framers intended -- one that is mysteriously lacking sources. Somehow, however, it's not surprising that you would just simply ignore repeated citations to references indicating that the pronoun "he" is gender neutral and then claim that nobody has shown you that such a usage was at all likely during the time that the Constitution was drafted. On top of that, your unsourced insights into the intentions of the Constitutional Framers is actually quite remarkable.

I'm really surprised that more attorneys in need of constitutional arguments aren't seeking your services.

[scott]

The constitution protects the rights of citizens to start asinine threads on message boards... but the question is whether that right will be infringed on by a woman president. Tis the crisis of our times.

[AFE7FATMAN]

Thinks for the History lesson folks.

[BonnerDynasty]

This is Herecy.

[Wild Cobra]

You seem to have a unique grasp on what the Framers intended -- one that is mysteriously lacking sources.

----

On top of that, your unsourced insights into the intentions of the Constitutional Framers is actually quite remarkable.

Unsourced, yes. But nobody has sourced a good opposing view either. I do have a grasp of what is considered the proper way to read the constitution. When such a thing is in the judicial system to agree with one side or the other, they use historical precedent and the black and white technicalities. On the constitution, they sometimes refer to the Federalist papers and Anti-Federalist papers.

Remember. In that time, women rarely did anything considered a man's job. There were few instances, but it was frowned upon also.

Consider the historical meaning of "Militia." It is any able bodied male that might be called to service. Women were never considered for war duties in those days. The Commander-in-Chief I would conclude was expected to be a male. In the day, the Commander-in-Chief had to be able to be on the battlefield. Besides, who back then would listen to a female Commander-in-Chief?

Now I would also say it was expected that the legislator would be all male because of the state requirement using the masculine pronoun rather than a neutral one. However, the legal technicalities of the text do not make it binding.

Think of how sexist they were then. Think of the culture. This must be applied to writings of the time unless otherwise specified. Just like slaves were not considered men. Only men were counted for

I ask this again. Are there any legal writings of the period that indicate the masculine pronoun is used to indicate a man or a woman?

Another tidbit. Consider Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3:


Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

This passage does not say "Number of free Men." It specifies "persons" to include women. The whole constitution is specific in word usage.