Clinton & Carly CANNOT Be President!

[Cecilie1200]

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

Oh, Christ, another illiterate weighs in.

Let's make this quick, Dickless. In the English language, particularly the older, more formal version spoken by the Framers, the pronoun "he" is not just specific to men. It is also used as a neutral pronoun when referring to a human being whose sex is not known by the speaker.

Problems of usage arise in languages such as English, in contexts where a person of unspecified or unknown sex or social gender is being referred to but commonly available pronouns (he or she) are gender-specific. In such cases a gender-specific, usually masculine, pronoun is sometimes used with intended gender-neutral meaning; such use of he was also common in English until the middle of the twentieth century but is now controversial. Use of singular they is another common alternative, but is considered by many to be descriptively ambiguous or confusing, and demands illogical verb agreement[1][not in citation given]Some attempts have been made, by proponents of gender-neutral language, to introduce invented gender-neutral pronouns.

Gender-specific and gender-neutral pronouns - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Because of the rise of feminism, and because of ignorant douche weasels like you who try in vain to be clever and make a big deal about gender specificity for their own purposes, we initially moved to "he or she" in the mid-20th century. This, of course, was cumbersome and awkward. Since people in this country are less and less burdened with education as time passes, they have moved to the highly-incorrect use of "they".

 

[playtime]

Because of the rise of feminism, and because of ignorant douche weasels like you who try in vain to be clever and make a big deal about gender specificity for their own purposes, we initially moved to "he or she" in the mid-20th century. This, of course, was cumbersome and awkward. Since people in this country are less and less burdened with education as time passes, they have moved to the highly-incorrect use of "they".

 

[J.E.D]

Clinton and Carly out?

I can deal with that...yes

ok by moi.

It should be changed I know but until its changed it IS the law.

Only a man should be president. Sorry but woman need to go back to being woman.

You need to go back to remedial English

 

[Davros]

Referring back to the original Constitution, women couldn't vote for about 150 years. Not until the 19th amendment made it so. Consequently, we can infer that until an amendment saying they can be president comes along they're constitutionally invalid as candidates. An arguement saying they coulda voted in the beginning would obviously be incorrect since it took an amendment to allow them to.

Wrong. The Constitution never barred women from voting. The 19th amendment prohibited the federal or state governments from prohibiting women from voting.

 

[Unkotare]

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

Lame troll thread attempt.

 

[Toro]

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.

When you get pwnd by gasbag, you should seriously consider leaving the Internet forever.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Clinton and Carly out?

I can deal with that...yes

ok by moi.

It should be changed I know but until its changed it IS the law.

Only a man should be president. Sorry but woman need to go back to being woman.

We were Queens, ruling Nations, long before you were born!!!!

True and clearly the FF learned that you shouldn't lead a free country.

Just saying, they were very clear about it being for men only.

They were liberals, after all, so their logic is infallible.

NOPE!

To be VERY CLEAR they would have had to say,

Women, SHALL NOT hold the office of president.

They did not do such.

Men needed to vote, to aMENd the Constitution so you ladies could vote.

So clearly it's clear.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Plus, the subsequent Amendments to the Constitution, sealed the deal on women being allowed to hold the position.

Really?

when did we aMENd the Constitution saying anyone had the right to a job?

 

[Care4all]

Plus, the subsequent Amendments to the Constitution, sealed the deal on women being allowed to hold the position.

Really?

when did we aMENd the Constitution saying anyone had the right to a job?

the 14th has been used by the SC to justify equality, all men (and women) are created equal...and some precedence to such has been established by the SC on this....

the Civil rights amendment has also established such as well....

sure, us women do not have a specific, equal rights amendment that has been ratified,

there are arguments that it is not needed with all the precedence that has taken place, but others argue that the equal rights amendment is still needed to guarantee us equal rights, now and forever.

 

[DarkFury]

Plus, the subsequent Amendments to the Constitution, sealed the deal on women being allowed to hold the position.

Really?

when did we aMENd the Constitution saying anyone had the right to a job?

the 14th has been used by the SC to justify equality, all men (and women) are created equal...and some precedence to such has been established by the SC on this....

the Civil rights amendment has also established such as well....

sure, us women do not have a specific, equal rights amendment that has been ratified,

there are arguments that it is not needed with all the precedence that has taken place, but others argue that the equal rights amendment is still needed to guarantee us equal rights, now and forever.

It REQUIRES a change to the Constitution. Good luck with that.

 

[Programmer]

I think we need a constitutional amendment defining the presidency as a relationship between a man and his pronoun.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Referring back to the original Constitution, women couldn't vote for about 150 years. Not until the 19th amendment made it so. Consequently, we can infer that until an amendment saying they can be president comes along they're constitutionally invalid as candidates. An arguement saying they coulda voted in the beginning would obviously be incorrect since it took an amendment to allow them to.

Wrong. The Constitution never barred women from voting. The 19th amendment prohibited the federal or state governments from prohibiting women from voting.

So women didn't vote for 150 years because they didn't feel like it?

 

[Davros]

Referring back to the original Constitution, women couldn't vote for about 150 years. Not until the 19th amendment made it so. Consequently, we can infer that until an amendment saying they can be president comes along they're constitutionally invalid as candidates. An arguement saying they coulda voted in the beginning would obviously be incorrect since it took an amendment to allow them to.

Wrong. The Constitution never barred women from voting. The 19th amendment prohibited the federal or state governments from prohibiting women from voting.

So women didn't vote for 150 years because they didn't feel like it?

That's irrelevant to the fact that "he" means "he or she" when used in a context in which gender is not otherwise specified.

It requires a lack of understanding of the English language to interpret the constitution as requiring the President be a man.

That the founders probably expected all Presidents would be men does not change the facts about the English language. To ban women from the Presidency, the constitution would have to explicitly specify that the President must be a man. The word "man" does not occur in that section.

 

[Davros]

Where article 2 could have used the word "man" it instead used the word "person". Case closed. You morons will not be able to prevent a woman from becoming President in this way, so give it up.

 

[Jantje_Smit]

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.

I think you're reading that wrong, it just says that a male president has a term of 4 years

So, if Hillary is selected she can be president for life if she wants

 

[Cecilie1200]

Referring back to the original Constitution, women couldn't vote for about 150 years. Not until the 19th amendment made it so. Consequently, we can infer that until an amendment saying they can be president comes along they're constitutionally invalid as candidates. An arguement saying they coulda voted in the beginning would obviously be incorrect since it took an amendment to allow them to.

Wrong. The Constitution never barred women from voting. The 19th amendment prohibited the federal or state governments from prohibiting women from voting.

Quite true. It was state and local laws that barred women from voting, and that certainly was not the case everywhere.

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.

Wrong, dipshit. Article I, Section 2 states, "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 3 states, "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." Two paragraphs later, it states, "The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States."

Article I, Section 6 states, "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."

That's just what I found in the five minutes I looked before getting bored.

Since women have already served in both the House and the Senate numerous times without any issue arising regarding the legality of it, one of two explanations applies: Either you're the most brilliant person who's ever lived, and cleverly discovered a provision of law that has escaped every Constitutional scholar in the history of the country; or two, you're a fucking moron who's trying too hard to be Mr. Clever Dick with an inadequate understanding not only of the Constitution, but of basic English grammar rules.

Guess which one is more likely?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Clinton and Carly out?

I can deal with that...yes

ok by moi.

It should be changed I know but until its changed it IS the law.

No, it isn't, dumbass. It's just your ignorance and illiteracy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Clinton should never be president, but then again neither should Bush..

The LAW is what the LAW is. And in this case BOTH parties are violating the LAW.

Yes, a law that no one has ever noticed or even considered before now, despite a long history of women holding elected office under similarly-written laws. Hmmm. Almost makes you think you didn't REALLY discover something new and clever and shocking.

Idiot.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Clinton and Carly out?

I can deal with that...yes

ok by moi.

It should be changed I know but until its changed it IS the law.

Only a man should be president. Sorry but woman need to go back to being woman.

No one is suggesting that Hillary and Carly be issued penises, so settle down.

 

[browsing deer]

Interesting note... New Jersey allowed women's suffrage in 1776 The Federalists got their wives to the polls for the 1796 election and got the state for Adams. The Democrats fixed the problem in 1807.