Hillary cannot become president

[Wild Cobra]

Well, I think I know the answer...

It is uncons utional 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 cons ution 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 cons utional amendment to include the finer sex to be equal in all aspects of cons utional 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]

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 Cons ution 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 Consi ution 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 cons ution 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 Cons ution matter?

[smeagol]

Great thread






(where the is my blue ink?)

[Oh, Gee!!]

The US Cons ution also spells Congress wrong (Congrefs).

[ChumpDumper]

Damn, the board righties are scurred.

[Lebowski Brickowski]

That's the Conf ution to you, buddy.

[Oh, Gee!!]

nowhere in the conf ution does it say that fhe can be president

[clambake]

thats turrible.

[braeden0613]

The US Cons ution 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...

[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 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 Cons ution 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 cons utional 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 Cons ution in the way proposed in this thread. The 1828 Webster's Dictionary -- one published not long after the Cons ution was written -- provides expressly in describing the use of masculine pronouns that "He, when a subs ute 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 Cons ution, you're viewpoint strikes me as incredibly unreasonable.

[PixelPusher]

The best argument is one that says it's really freakin' stupid to read the Cons ution in the way proposed in this thread. The 1828 Webster's Dictionary -- one published not long after the Cons ution was written -- provides expressly in describing the us of masculine pronouns that "He, when a subs ute 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 Cons ution, you're viewpoint strikes me as incredibly unreasonable.

I dunno...sounds like soft-headed, "living cons ution" fluff to me. WC was just offering a "strict cons utionalist" viewpoint.

[Wild Cobra]

I dunno...sounds like soft-headed, "living cons ution" fluff to me. WC was just offering a "strict cons utionalist" viewpoint.

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 cons utional 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 " 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 cons utional 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 " 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 Cons ution and "offering absolutely absurd views of the Cons ution 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 Cons ution 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 cons utional 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 Cons ution in the way proposed in this thread. The 1828 Webster's Dictionary -- one published not long after the Cons ution was written -- provides expressly in describing the use of masculine pronouns that "He, when a subs ute 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 cons ution. The framers were well educated and it is a specific legal do ent. 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 Cons ution, 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 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?i...3&rss=newswire

Lawsuit Claims U.S. Cons ution Bans Woman President

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

Douglas Wallace, 80, argues that because the cons ution 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 do ent, 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 cons ution 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 Cons ution 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 Cons ution; 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 cons ution. The framers were well educated and it is a specific legal do ent. 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 Cons ution is general; that's the beauty of the do ent -- 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 Cons ution 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 do ent.

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 Cons ution lies in its generality. There's been little need to amend the do ent (27 amendments in almost 230 years is an incredibly small number) and there's no need to amend the do ent 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.