Hillary cannot become president

[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 cons ution part I'm referring to is federal. Laws cannot override the cons ution 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 cons ution 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 Cons ution 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. Cons ution Bans Woman President

The Associated Press
April 9, 2008

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 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 ing.

[BonnerDynasty]

lolz, I loves me some cackle!

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/pol...aughs.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 cons utional 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 do ent 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 Cons ution -- 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 Cons ution 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 Cons ution was drafted. On top of that, your unsourced insights into the intentions of the Cons utional Framers is actually quite remarkable.

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

[scott]

The cons ution 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 Cons utional 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 cons ution. 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 cons ution, 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 cons ution is specific in word usage.