Clinton & Carly CANNOT Be President!

[DarkFury]

The OP is an embarrassment. You will probably cause people to vote for hitlary and Carly

The OP is about the LAW. Is the LAW just? No, it needs to be changed. But it needs to be changed BEFORE any woman takes office NOT after.

And in truth there is NO after. Its grounds to NOT swear her in even.

 

[Davros]

In legal writing, he is a general neutral term unless otherwise stated. This is to prevent against the redundancy and tedium of saying he/she or he and/or she again and again. All the same, Clinton should be impeached now from holding any office and thus not allowed to run. It's a g-d disgrace that this bitch will be on a ballot.

Nothing was gender neutral when that was written and it was written gender specific.

That is not true. People didn't start worrying about the fact that English has no gender neutral third person personal pronoun until the 60s and 70s due to feminism. Before then, people simply used the word "he" to refer to a person of an unknown gender.

Your argument is a loser, and will NEVER prevail in court.

 

[Davros]

The OP is an embarrassment. You will probably cause people to vote for hitlary and Carly

The OP is about the LAW. Is the LAW just? No, it needs to be changed. But it needs to be changed BEFORE any woman takes office NOT after.

And in truth there is NO after. Its grounds to NOT swear her in even.

The OP is about you not understanding your own language. If you are a native English speaker, that is indeed an embarrassment.

 

[DarkFury]

In legal writing, he is a general neutral term unless otherwise stated. This is to prevent against the redundancy and tedium of saying he/she or he and/or she again and again. All the same, Clinton should be impeached now from holding any office and thus not allowed to run. It's a g-d disgrace that this bitch will be on a ballot.

Nothing was gender neutral when that was written and it was written gender specific.

That is not true. People didn't start worrying about the fact that English has no gender neutral third person personal pronoun until the 60s and 70s due to feminism. Before then, people simply used the word "he" to refer to a person of an unknown gender.

Your argument is a loser, and will NEVER prevail in court.

More then a few layers could tie it up. At least to the point she is NOT sworn in.

 

[Davros]

In legal writing, he is a general neutral term unless otherwise stated. This is to prevent against the redundancy and tedium of saying he/she or he and/or she again and again. All the same, Clinton should be impeached now from holding any office and thus not allowed to run. It's a g-d disgrace that this bitch will be on a ballot.

Nothing was gender neutral when that was written and it was written gender specific.

That is not true. People didn't start worrying about the fact that English has no gender neutral third person personal pronoun until the 60s and 70s due to feminism. Before then, people simply used the word "he" to refer to a person of an unknown gender.

Your argument is a loser, and will NEVER prevail in court.

More then a few layers could tie it up. At least to the point she is NOT sworn in.

No way. You would be dismissed out of court immediately. It is simply a fact that in English "he" may mean a person of unspecified gender. The use of "he" in that passage does not indicate that the President has to be a male. To say that, you have to act like there aren't thousands of occurrences in English where he was used in a gender neutral sense. Which is a blatant falsehood. No court would even consider your argument.

 

[DarkFury]

In legal writing, he is a general neutral term unless otherwise stated. This is to prevent against the redundancy and tedium of saying he/she or he and/or she again and again. All the same, Clinton should be impeached now from holding any office and thus not allowed to run. It's a g-d disgrace that this bitch will be on a ballot.

Nothing was gender neutral when that was written and it was written gender specific.

That is not true. People didn't start worrying about the fact that English has no gender neutral third person personal pronoun until the 60s and 70s due to feminism. Before then, people simply used the word "he" to refer to a person of an unknown gender.

Your argument is a loser, and will NEVER prevail in court.

More then a few layers could tie it up. At least to the point she is NOT sworn in.

No way. You would be dismissed out of court immediately. It is simply a fact that in English "he" may mean a person of unspecified gender. The use of "he" in that passage does not indicate that the President has to be a male. To say that, you have to act like there aren't thousands of occurrences in English where he was used in a gender neutral sense. Which is a blatant falsehood. No court would even consider your argument.

Just like McDonalds not putting a warning on HOT coffee that said HOT coffee. It WILL be looked at BEFORE any swearing and their WILL be suits. Count on it.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Its a violation of article 2 of the United States!

Article 2 Clause 1
Clause 1: Executive Power
"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, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows[1]

Article 2 Clause 1 calls for a MAN. It calls out what gender MAY be president quite clear. There is NO he/she ONLY he.

Article 2 Clause 7 says and I quote "HE".
Clause 7: Salary[edit]
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.


The law IS gender specific. You CANNOT have a female UNTIL you change that wording because to do so IS a violation of those articles AND clauses. Clinton AND Carlry do NOT have the LEGAL right to be president under the Articles and Clauses of the United States Constitution.

And its a legal VIOLATION to do otherwise!
Article Two of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In proper English when the gender is unknown, the masculine is used.

but since leftist denounce that to the core of their being, hillary and Carly are out.



sucks to be a leftist assbag and have this come back and bite you in the ass, but dems da rulz

 

[nuhuh]

Gee, how did Geraldine Ferraro run for vice president without a court challenge? she was just a heartbeat away....

 

[DarkFury]

Gee, how did Geraldine Ferraro run for vice president without a court challenge? she was just a heartbeat away....

Can't file a suit until it starts to happen now can you idiot?

 

[nuhuh]

Gee, how did Geraldine Ferraro run for vice president without a court challenge? she was just a heartbeat away....

Can't file a suit until it starts to happen now can you idiot?

Well dumdum there appears to be a 31 year old precedent and 25 women who have run for president before, List of female United States presidential and vice-presidential candidates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia don't forget Sarah Palin who would be running for president today had she won. Go to bed, you're done. Idiot

 

[Searcher44]

Its a violation of article 2 of the United States!

Article 2 Clause 1
Clause 1: Executive Power
"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, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows[1]

Article 2 Clause 1 calls for a MAN. It calls out what gender MAY be president quite clear. There is NO he/she ONLY he.

Article 2 Clause 7 says and I quote "HE".
Clause 7: Salary[edit]
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.


The law IS gender specific. You CANNOT have a female UNTIL you change that wording because to do so IS a violation of those articles AND clauses. Clinton AND Carlry do NOT have the LEGAL right to be president under the Articles and Clauses of the United States Constitution.

And its a legal VIOLATION to do otherwise!
Article Two of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's a good example of why the Constitution of the U.S of A. has to be considered an organic (or "living") document. The anachronisms, changing mores of the nation and technological realities demand such an approach.

 

[auditor0007]

Come on, Darkfury

I am a sexist SOB and recognize women can hold office. Hell, Congress is the perfect place for them. There, they can bit--uhh, debate all they want and have their hands on their husbands wallet.

The office of the president is the only office that is called by gender. There WAS a reason for that. Its NOT me being sexist its me quoting the LAW.

As soon as Hillary is elected, you can take your case to the courts. We shall see how far you get.

 

[edthecynic]

the Constitution, to the far left it is just a GD piece of paper..

There you worthless lying scum go again, trying to pass off that Republican CON$ervative POS Bush as a Leftist.

See how the far left tries the Bush defense when it is Obama that has trashed the Constitution and sees it as a GD piece of paper.

Yet the far left droens believe that GWB said something like that even when their own fact checking soucres shows he did not.

Bush: The Constitution a ‘Goddamned Piece of Paper’?

See why the far left religion is so dangerous..

And there is the CON$ervoFascist "logic" on display, The quote was attributed to Bush by 3 GOP sources but later was retracted, so the lying scum on the Right are then free to pin the quote on Obama with absolutely NO sources.

See how the far left will cover up the fact that they are wrong! Even when their own sources tell them they are wrong. That is why the far left is much more dangerous than ISIS..

You gotta just love the shameless way the lying scum Right lie!
YOU lie about Obama and the Constitution being just a God damn piece of paper, and because I nail you in your lie that makes me "dangerous."
Lying scum CON$ervoFascists can rationalize anything.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Its a violation of article 2 of the United States!

Article 2 Clause 1
Clause 1: Executive Power
"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, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows[1]

Article 2 Clause 1 calls for a MAN. It calls out what gender MAY be president quite clear. There is NO he/she ONLY he.

Article 2 Clause 7 says and I quote "HE".
Clause 7: Salary[edit]
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.


The law IS gender specific. You CANNOT have a female UNTIL you change that wording because to do so IS a violation of those articles AND clauses. Clinton AND Carlry do NOT have the LEGAL right to be president under the Articles and Clauses of the United States Constitution.

And its a legal VIOLATION to do otherwise!
Article Two of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting point. Certainly when you consider women couldn't even vote when that was being written it raises a valid point.

 

[Esmeralda]

Its a violation of article 2 of the United States!

Article 2 Clause 1
Clause 1: Executive Power
"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, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows[1]

Article 2 Clause 1 calls for a MAN. It calls out what gender MAY be president quite clear. There is NO he/she ONLY he.

Article 2 Clause 7 says and I quote "HE".
Clause 7: Salary[edit]
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.


The law IS gender specific. You CANNOT have a female UNTIL you change that wording because to do so IS a violation of those articles AND clauses. Clinton AND Carlry do NOT have the LEGAL right to be president under the Articles and Clauses of the United States Constitution.

And its a legal VIOLATION to do otherwise!
Article Two of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Esmeralda]

Its a violation of article 2 of the United States!

Article 2 Clause 1
Clause 1: Executive Power
"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, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows[1]

Article 2 Clause 1 calls for a MAN. It calls out what gender MAY be president quite clear. There is NO he/she ONLY he.

Article 2 Clause 7 says and I quote "HE".
Clause 7: Salary[edit]
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.


The law IS gender specific. You CANNOT have a female UNTIL you change that wording because to do so IS a violation of those articles AND clauses. Clinton AND Carlry do NOT have the LEGAL right to be president under the Articles and Clauses of the United States Constitution.

And its a legal VIOLATION to do otherwise!
Article Two of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting point. Certainly when you consider women couldn't even vote when that was being written it raises a valid point.

 

[candycorn]

Does Art Bell know about you?

 

[Esmeralda]

In English, he can be a generic pronoun and was commonly used as one until the 90s.

Try again, sexist.

What you think means nothing. What they said means everything. And they said "HE" no options No maybes or ifs, just HE. And its NOT a generic pronoun. Its GENDER specific.

We also say 'mankind,' but we don't mean only men. The Constitution says 'he,' but it doesn't mean only men. History is not just 'his story.' The language of the Constitution saying 'he' does not mean only men. If some idiot, like you, challenged it on a legal basis, and it went to the Supreme Court, he (or she) would lose. In this case and uncountable others, 'he' is a generic term, especially grammatically.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Good article here about it,
Are Women Allowed to Be President?

"It’s a question that’s rarely asked and on its face seems ridiculous: Are women allowed to become president of the United States? But nearly a century after women gained the constitutional right to vote, many Americans would be surprised to find the answer isn’t simple.

That’s because Article II of the Constitution, which lays out the qualifications and duties of the president, uses the word “he” 16 times to describe the holder of that office.
...

Discussion of the Constitution's use of “he” to describe the president likely will remain academic. The last time Hillary Clinton ran for president, losing to Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic primary, an 80-year-old Nevada man sued to keep her off the ballot.

That case, filed in state court, was dismissed.

John Banzhaf, a professor at the George Washington University Law School, says anyone challenging in court the constitutionality of a female president would fail.

He points out there wasn't a lawsuit to boot Sarah Palin from the GOP ticket in 2008 or Geraldine Ferraro from the Democratic vice presidential spot in 1984."

Related question occurs, if slaves were 3/5ths a free man, where does blacks as President appear? Can you really imagine the Founders accepting a black President, or a female one?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Its a violation of article 2 of the United States!

Article 2 Clause 1
Clause 1: Executive Power
"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, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows[1]

Article 2 Clause 1 calls for a MAN. It calls out what gender MAY be president quite clear. There is NO he/she ONLY he.

Article 2 Clause 7 says and I quote "HE".
Clause 7: Salary[edit]
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.


The law IS gender specific. You CANNOT have a female UNTIL you change that wording because to do so IS a violation of those articles AND clauses. Clinton AND Carlry do NOT have the LEGAL right to be president under the Articles and Clauses of the United States Constitution.

And its a legal VIOLATION to do otherwise!
Article Two of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting point. Certainly when you consider women couldn't even vote when that was being written it raises a valid point.

I don't personally have a problem with it, but like Justice Scalia I'm a textualist. Show me where it says it's permitted.