Posted on 08/31/2008 8:20:52 AM PDT by Oyarsa
Author's Note: I originally wrote and posted this article on my website on June 13, 2004. The URL was hit 11.4 million times in a two-day period and was the most read article on www.jonchrisitanryter.com in the history of my website. At least one well-recognized constitutional lawyer agreed with the view of the article that, without a Constitutional amendment degenderizing Article II of the Constitution, Hillary Rodham Clinton cannot constitutionally seek—or legally hold—the office of President of the United States. That, of course will not stop the former First Lady and current junior Senator from New York from running anyway and attempting to amend the US Constitution by precedent. If no one files a petititon before the US Supreme Court (which is the only court with jurisdiction over this question) and should Hillary win, the Constitution will have been amended by common practice—opening the door wide for the elimination of the 2nd Amendment using the same tactics.
In point of fact, about the time this article appeared in 2004, an effort was being made to enact what became known as "the Arnold Amendment" that was purportedly designed to change the laws of the land to provide for naturalized citizens like California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm to legally seek the office of President of the United States. The Arnold Amendment was really the Screw America Amendment since it was covertly designed to legalize Hillary Clinton's run for the roses. Since Hillary knows that 60% of the American people—men and women—will never vote for her, telling people the purpose of the Arnold Amendment was to degenderize Article II of the Constitution, the amendment would be a non-starter. But then, even without being told, most people figured it out because the Arnold Amendment appears to be stuck in limbo.
(Excerpt) Read more at jonchristianryter.com ...
What say ye?
The equal protection clause trumps this.
LOL
IBTP(in before the pull)
What an insular, bizarre little man the author of this article must be.
Back then the masculine pronouns were used for both genders. I doubt that the oblique masculine verbiage of the Constitution would be an obstacle of any consequence, as it does not specifically enumerate that the president must be male.
Very true, Paul B.
I say the author's a moron. The usage of male pronouns is clearly generic; the writers didn't have modern PC hangups to worry about.
On a side note, you've got a great screen name.
Don’t see no restriction there.
At this point in time, wouldn’t the “Arnold Amendment” be more appropriately called the “Obama Amendment”.
By the same criteria, she isn't qualified, nor has any woman been, to serve as Representative or Senator.
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.
I was unconvinced based on some errors I caught that noone has brought up yet, but figured I'd post it as something light for this fine Sunday morning.
On a side note, you've got a great screen name.
Thank you. :-)
I take it you're familiar with Lewis's Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, and That Hideous Strenth?
Why do people keep coming up with these wacky theories? The *troof* will set you free? lol
Not only that, but his own premise is flawed concerning the 19th amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Maybe my reading comprehension skills need a Viagra, but I fail to find any reason why a women cannot run for POTUS
Article II Section 1
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:
I doubt the founders used the pronoun "He" as a way to exclude women
it has been urged for the appellant, and my own researches incline me to agree, that in all that mass of authorities which bears upon this branch of the law there is no single mention of a reasonable woman.;-)
. . . It was ably insisted before us that such an omission, extending over a century and more of judicial pronouncements, must be something more than a coincidence; that among the innumerable tributes to the reasonable man there might be expected at least some passing reference to a reasonable person of the opposite sex; that no such reference is found, for the simple reason that no such being is contemplated by the law; that legally at least there is no reasonable woman, and that therefore in this case the learned judge should have directed the jury that, while there was evidence on which they might find that the defendant had not come up to the standard required of a reasonable man, her conduct was only what was to be expected of a woman, as such. . . .
I find that at Common Law a reasonable woman does not exist.
For those of you posting that people “used to” use masculine pronouns as a default implying either gender, I sincerely hope you use proper English today.
The “singular they” has got to be one of the most ridiculous constructions ever. “He/she” would be much better, but I’m sure “they” was chosen because the feminazis realize how awkward and forced the former sounds.
But writing things like “if someone wants to run for President, THEY have to be 35 years old” (instead of someone —> he) is just terrible English. I find it about as grating as “should of”, “could of”, etc.
Came here to say this. Anybody who does not know this may have a grasp of the law, but certainly not English. Then again, lawyers are a dime a dozen for a reason - a law degree isn’t hard to earn.
Jon Christian Ryter shows every sign of being a stone cold idiot.
It sure does. Non issue.
Why doesn’t the equal protection clause protect me from a graduated income tax?
Do people not remember that Jeanette Rankin was elected to a federal position, the United States House of Representatives, four years prior to the 20th Amendment’s passage?
There are only two methods for amending the Constitution and "precedent" or "informal" are not the methods.
Heh. An interesting wishful thought, but if that’s the case, even the Bible excludes women as being eligible for anything much.
I think a ZOT is on the way, but women can’t ZOT since I think it reads that “anyone can ZOT on FR if “he” should so desire”. I’m not a “he”.
"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 with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected as follows..."It is common form to use masculine gender for a person or persons of undetermined gender or mixed groups. Feminists have mangled the English language by using plural genderless prounouns in instead of the singular gendered pronouns "he" or "she". The author of this article seems to be oblivious to 18th century grammer and style conventions.
How old is this author?? Don't they teach that in proper English an unknown person in the singular is “He” anymore? It was the feminists in the early 70s that came up with the wacko idea that using the masculine form as the default was sexist and excluded women.
Although the founders may not have envisioned a woman president; neither would they necessarily opposed one. The glorious age of Queen Elizabeth was fairly recent history to them.
Indeed, even if this was simply a matter of construing what “he” means, the argument is not well-founded. In traditional usage, “he” includes both genders if not referring to a specific male or to one of a group of males.
Finally, the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment also removes any possibility of a disability as to women running for President. The application of the 14th Amendendment to gender is well settled and beyond serious question.
HItlery can legally be President.
Let’s not get ridiculous.
Only if the Court says so.
They haven’t incorporated the Fourteenth into the Second, for example.
However, that being said, it’d be really interesting to see the Democrats try to argue this should the McCain/Palin ticket win in November, and (heaven forbid) there be a Presidential funeral shortly thereafter. (While still attempting to maintain their alleged status as Protector Of Minorities And Best Friend Of Women...)
there is no such thing in the law as a reasonable woman.
I sure hope you can run, because I see a large crowd of women assembling with torches and pitchforks...
:-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.