Can Hilary actually be President?

[techs]

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/...of_America#Section_1_2

Article 2 of the Constitution of the United States:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments


Now a strict constructionist could argue that not only does it SAY the President is a HE, but that the INTENT was clear that the President be a HE.


Hehe (pun intended). Should be interesting to see if the Bush Supreme Court goes all the way and tries to decide the election against Hilary if whe wins.

 

[blackangst1]

Unfortunately no. One can only serve 2 terms as president.

 

[nonameo]

When we say mankind, we're not referring only to males are we?

The constitution simply uses the masculine in a neutral sense.

 

[Moonbeam]

The Founding Mothers never anticipated a woman being President.

 

[ComradeKilroy]

well generally if there are males in the population you are speaking of, you usually use the masculine pronouns.

 

[XMan]

This thread is ridiculous.

Even if you could argue that it explicitly says "he" the language of the 14th Amendment is gender neutral. And, add to that the 19th Amendment.

 

[ComradeKilroy]

doesn't the 19th only say women can vote?

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: XMan
This thread is ridiculous.

Even if you could argue that it explicitly says "he" the language of the 14th Amendment is gender neutral. And, add to that the 19th Amendment.

The 14th which provides for "equal protection" under the law, does not spefically provide that a woman can become President. In fact, the 14th Amendment does such a poor job of giving women equality the ERA was proposed.

The 19th amendment merely gives women the right to vote.

 

[sandorski]

I think an assumption was made when that was written. That is, that a Woman would never be made President. The idea probably never even entered their minds. I think times have changed and the idea is certain a possibility, but as the OP brings up, a strict Interpreter might see a Woman President as a problem. However, that type of person probably lives in the wilderness and out of sight of society. So no need to worry.

 

[ProfJohn]

Techs has stumbled on something interesting here.
If Hillary does win I wonder if some nut job will sue to keep her from taking office.

I highly doubt the Republicans or just about any sane person will try to stop her, but this country has some really off the wall kook jobs out there.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: sandorski
I think an assumption was made when that was written. That is, that a Woman would never be made President. The idea probably never even entered their minds. I think times have changed and the idea is certain a possibility, but as the OP brings up, a strict Interpreter might see a Woman President as a problem. However, that type of person probably lives in the wilderness and out of sight of society. So no need to worry.

I'm pretty sure someone like Scalia or Thomas will try to make a case.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: sandorski
I think an assumption was made when that was written. That is, that a Woman would never be made President. The idea probably never even entered their minds. I think times have changed and the idea is certain a possibility, but as the OP brings up, a strict Interpreter might see a Woman President as a problem. However, that type of person probably lives in the wilderness and out of sight of society. So no need to worry.

I'm pretty sure someone like Scalia or Thomas will try to make a case.

How old are you???
Things that make you go hmmmm

 

[StageLeft]

I don't know if that tacitly implies it should only be a he, but I doubt it. I am not sure that "he/she" was in vogue back then when referring to people.

Any historical document must be interpreted based on context, which is also why it's silly for people to argue they're allowed to carry around machine guns when such things didn't exist at the time of the constitution's execution.

 

[dullard]

The word "he" doesn't necessarilly mean male. This is one of the biggest myths around. From dictionary.com:

2. anyone (without reference to sex); that person: He who hesitates is lost.
...
Traditionally, the masculine singular pronouns he, his, and him have been used generically to refer to indefinite pronouns like anyone, everyone, and someone (Everyone who agrees should raise his right hand) and to singular nouns that can be applied to either sex.

 

[Genx87]

When you are retired this must be what one does all day.
This is almost as good as the corporations are socialist entities thread.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I don't know if that tacitly implies it should only be a he, but I doubt it. I am not sure that "he/she" was in vogue back then when referring to people.

Any historical document must be interpreted based on context, which is also why it's silly for people to argue they're allowed to carry around machine guns when such things didn't exist at the time of the constitution's execution.

Actually they intended for the citizens to be able to own firearms to prevent the government from becoming to powerful. If the citizens have the right to bear arms, they can overthrow a corrupt government. Now how are citizens supposed to keep the government in check if they can't legally own any kind of firearms? I can't find a single case of a legally owned machine gun being used in a crime, and I bet that you can't either. Same thing with the .50 cal sniper rifle. I bet that you'd argue that a 10 round magazine limit would lower the suicide rate too.

 

[piasabird]

Original constitution did also not allow women to vote.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I don't know if that tacitly implies it should only be a he, but I doubt it. I am not sure that "he/she" was in vogue back then when referring to people.

Any historical document must be interpreted based on context, which is also why it's silly for people to argue they're allowed to carry around machine guns when such things didn't exist at the time of the constitution's execution.

Actually they intended for the citizens to be able to own firearms to prevent the government from becoming to powerful. If the citizens have the right to bear arms, they can overthrow a corrupt government. Now how are citizens supposed to keep the government in check if they can't legally own any kind of firearms? I can't find a single case of a legally owned machine gun being used in a crime, and I bet that you can't either. Same thing with the .50 cal sniper rifle. I bet that you'd argue that a 10 round magazine limit would lower the suicide rate too.

Well, kinda true. Overthrowing the Government was mentioned, but Foreign invasions would have been the main concern. Before the War of 1812 the US had no Military, just Militias as the Constitution called for. Early in that war they proved to be a pretty poor Military Force in comparison to the British conscripts. The idea of Militias as the US's main Military force was pretty much abandoned by the end of the War.

These days the history seems to be ignored and along with it original intent. So due to "overthrowing the Government" having never been tested and disproved, I guess it's one of the last "Constitutional" reasons to keep Firearms as a Right.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Well, kinda true. Overthrowing the Government was mentioned, but Foreign invasions would have been the main concern. Before the War of 1812 the US had no Military, just Militias as the Constitution called for. Early in that war they proved to be a pretty poor Military Force in comparison to the British conscripts. The idea of Militias as the US's main Military force was pretty much abandoned by the end of the War.

These days the history seems to be ignored and along with it original intent. So due to "overthrowing the Government" having never been tested and disproved, I guess it's one of the last "Constitutional" reasons to keep Firearms as a Right.

Good point!

 

[StageLeft]

I can't find a single case of a legally owned machine gun being used in a crime, and I bet that you can't either.

In great part because they are very hard to find, just as you can't find the use of a legal or illegally used rocket launcher used in one domestically.

I bet that you'd argue that a 10 round magazine limit would lower the suicide rate too.

How much do you want to bet?

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Original constitution did also not allow women to vote.

Hence, then 19th amendment was born.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: sandorski
I think an assumption was made when that was written. That is, that a Woman would never be made President. The idea probably never even entered their minds. I think times have changed and the idea is certain a possibility, but as the OP brings up, a strict Interpreter might see a Woman President as a problem. However, that type of person probably lives in the wilderness and out of sight of society. So no need to worry.

I'm pretty sure someone like Scalia or Thomas will try to make a case.

How old are you???
Things that make you go hmmmm

Wow, that came from left field.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Genx87
When you are retired this must be what one does all day.
This is almost as good as the corporations are socialist entities thread.

techs is retired? I thought he was 13.

 

[shira]

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution defines eligibility for the Presidency:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

If the FF had wanted to restrict eligibility to men, they could easily have inserted "male" into the list of limitations.

Edit: And in case you thing "citizen" is a loaded word, the 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868) makes clear who is a citizen:

1. 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.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Genx87
When you are retired this must be what one does all day.
This is almost as good as the corporations are socialist entities thread.

techs is retired? I thought he was 13.

hahaha