RE: Can a woman be President of the United States sans a Constitutional Amendment?

RE: Can a woman be President of the United States sans a Constitutional Amendment? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

teentie -> RE: Can a woman be President of the United States sans a Constitutional Amendment? (3/26/2016 5:44:26 AM)
many years ago , we in u.k had a female prime minister, she did a wonderful job.

PeonForHer -> RE: Can a woman be President of the United States sans a Constitutional Amendment? (3/26/2016 5:53:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: teentie many years ago , we in u.k had a female prime minister, she did a wonderful job. No, she didn't.

Lucylastic -> RE: Can a woman be President of the United States sans a Constitutional Amendment? (3/26/2016 5:56:50 AM)
hahahhahahahhahahahhahahahahahhahahaha OMG ok I think i just gave myself a hernia

Awareness -> RE: Can a woman be President of the United States sans a Constitutional Amendment? (3/26/2016 6:41:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne the courts would simply apply the 19th amendment. the us constitution is ONLY a living document in the respect it can be amended in accord with due process of law, no other way. No. The effect of the constitution is determined by its application by the Supreme Court. The constitution is indeed a living document, because its interpretation is subject to change. So you think one party can freely change a contract without due consideration of the other party? [8\|] I await your citation The Constitution isn't a contract, it's the fundamental law of the land, which no statute may contravene. I'm afraid you don't understand the nature of the law. Human languages are inexact. They don't describe anything with the neat logic of mathematics. Laws as written are an attempt to codify rules and those rules are never going to cover all situations and all possible variations. This is why we have judges. One of the purposes of judges is to interpret the spirit - not the letter - of the law. It naturally follows that the ultimate interpretation of the constitution will be performed by the Justices of the Supreme Court. Consequently the effect of the constitution is based upon the interpretation of those judges. That's why the Republican party is behaving so shamefully by attempting to block a Presidential nominee for the Supreme Court. They want to ensure their interpretation of the Constitution is the one which dominates the USA for the next decade.

mnottertail -> RE: Can a woman be President of the United States sans a Constitutional Amendment? (3/26/2016 10:36:58 AM)
You will find that English contains no third person singular gender neutral pronouns. End of case.

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Can a woman be President of the United States sans a Constitutional Amendment? (3/27/2016 6:19:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 No misogyny here. Just a question for all strict Constitutionalists out there. Article II of the Constitution outlines the powers of the President. It ONLY uses male pronouns. ("He", "His") Would a female President not be entitled to those powers sans a Constitutional Amendment? We can all rationalize on WHY the Constitution was written that way, but that doesn't answer the question. Would someone challenge it, if a woman were elected President? Keep in mind the Constitution does not say the President must be male, but rather seems to assume that it is the case. What do you think? That is an interesting question. I'm not sure it's ever going to be determined for 100% certainty, either. I do believe original intentions and historical definitions and usage trump current definitions and usage. Good read from the WaPo Interesting article from LibertyLawsite.org Both articles bring up that the Constitution uses the male-gender forms of pronouns, and that at that time in history the male-gender pronouns referred to a male, and it also was used to refer to both genders. It is still common to use the male pronouns when referring to a group of mixed gender people. From the second link: quote: This might seem like an odd question, but a journalist recently asked me my opinion about the matter. It turns out that Article II of the Constitution refers to the President as a him. For example: “He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years.” If this “he” meant only a male person, there would be a strong argument that the President had to be a male. But I believe that this interpretation is mistaken. It is my understanding that the term “he” at the time of the Constitution had multiple meanings or usages. While one of those was to refer to a male person, another was to use the term “he” to mean “he or she.” Under that usage, a female President would be constitutional. The same issue arises as to members of Congress as well. For example, Article I, section 2, clause 2 provides “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.” (Emphasis added.) The article also points out the irony in the modern feminist movement: quote: While the original meaning appears to indicate that females can serve as members of Congress or as President, I am not sure that all versions of nonoriginalism support this result. Consider the view that we should interpret the Constitution based on the modern meaning of its terms. In an effort to induce writers not to use “he” to mean “he or she”, feminists and others have suggested that “he” always means a male person and does not have the “he or she” meaning. Suppose they have succeeded in changing the meaning of the word he. Then, under the modern meaning interpretive view, they might have had the unintended effect of prohibiting women from serving as President or in Congress. Another example that illustrates the weakness of the view that interprets the Constitution based on the modern meaning of the words. (emphasis added) The WaPo link is to a blog by Robert Natelson. Here is a link to Professor Robert Natelson's qualifications. The LibertyLaw article was written by Michael Rappaport. Here are his qualifications. Considering that both of them are supportive of originalism, and both of them finish their writings supporting the Constitution NOT barring a female from being POTUS, I think it's pretty solid to think a woman can be President. Excellent topic! I can say that by 3:18am (Eastern Time Zone), I had already learned something today. Excellent research. (As usual). Let's see what happens. I would bet... If Hilary were to win the Democratic nomination (likely), and was elected President by our state's electors, SOMEONE would raise the issue (and would probably be shot down)

DesideriScuri -> RE: Can a woman be President of the United States sans a Constitutional Amendment? (3/27/2016 6:34:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne the courts would simply apply the 19th amendment. the us constitution is ONLY a living document in the respect it can be amended in accord with due process of law, no other way. No. The effect of the constitution is determined by its application by the Supreme Court. The constitution is indeed a living document, because its interpretation is subject to change. The US Constitution can only be changed by amendment. I am an originalist, in that I believe each part needs to be interpreted as originally intended, not as changing meanings and interpretations have altered that.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Can a woman be President of the United States sans a Constitutional Amendment? (3/27/2016 6:37:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic I dont think that is what he said. And on the whole isnt everyone agreeing that only a moron would attempt to say a woman cant be president and be correct?? Then you would be wrong. If you can reinterpret a contract (which the US Constitution was intended to be) from one side without the other side getting a say, that's precisely what Awareness said.

Real0ne -> RE: Can a woman be President of the United States sans a Constitutional Amendment? (3/27/2016 6:43:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne the courts would simply apply the 19th amendment. the us constitution is ONLY a living document in the respect it can be amended in accord with due process of law, no other way. No. The effect of the constitution is determined by its application by the Supreme Court. The constitution is indeed a living document, because its interpretation is subject to change. The US Constitution can only be changed by amendment. I am an originalist, in that I believe each part needs to be interpreted as originally intended, not as changing meanings and interpretations have altered that. well he is incorrect in thinking the interpretation changes. It does not, or put it this way, more accurately said: every time they have it is a product of subterfuge and treason. The idea that reserved rights set aside from and not under the laws of the US are subject to legislation and regulation is possible the biggest grand delusion perpetrated on the american tardoids second only to the grand delusion of democracy. Its like; is there no bottom to how fucking stooopid can people be.

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Can a woman be President of the United States sans a Constitutional Amendment? (3/27/2016 6:47:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic I dont think that is what he said. And on the whole isnt everyone agreeing that only a moron would attempt to say a woman cant be president and be correct?? Then you would be wrong. If you can reinterpret a contract (which the US Constitution was intended to be) from one side without the other side getting a say, that's precisely what Awareness said. I too am an orginalist. (Although I believe, Scalia was a partisan hack, masquerading as an originalist. But that's beside the point). I believe (and it is just a belief) the framers intended the President to be male. I also believe, through the amendment process, that they opened the door for change (e.g. slavery, woman voting, etc.) I also believe, that a woman could certainly have the qualifications to be President (although, the two running this cycle failed miserably as leaders in their last jobs and do not have such qualifications) I also believe that the Constitution SHOULD be amended to specifically enumerate that the President can be of either gender. (Whether it MUST be in order for a woman to be President is doubtful.)

Real0ne -> RE: Can a woman be President of the United States sans a Constitutional Amendment? (3/27/2016 6:50:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne the courts would simply apply the 19th amendment. the us constitution is ONLY a living document in the respect it can be amended in accord with due process of law, no other way. No. The effect of the constitution is determined by its application by the Supreme Court. The constitution is indeed a living document, because its interpretation is subject to change. So you think one party can freely change a contract without due consideration of the other party? [8\|] I await your citation The Constitution isn't a contract, it's the fundamental law of the land, which no statute may contravene. I'm afraid you don't understand the nature of the law. Human languages are inexact. They don't describe anything with the neat logic of mathematics. Laws as written are an attempt to codify rules and those rules are never going to cover all situations and all possible variations. This is why we have judges. One of the purposes of judges is to interpret the spirit - not the letter - of the law. It naturally follows that the ultimate interpretation of the constitution will be performed by the Justices of the Supreme Court. Consequently the effect of the constitution is based upon the interpretation of those judges. That's why the Republican party is behaving so shamefully by attempting to block a Presidential nominee for the Supreme Court. They want to ensure their interpretation of the Constitution is the one which dominates the USA for the next decade. and human languages are really fucked up when you say shit like this: "The Constitution isn't a contract, it's the fundamental law of the land, which no statute may contravene." "The Constitution isn't a contract, false it's the fundamental law of the land, true which no statute may contravene." false Might want to hit a few books to understand why.

Real0ne -> RE: Can a woman be President of the United States sans a Constitutional Amendment? (3/27/2016 6:56:26 AM)
Like I said, the point I was trying to make is that I think you would find that the courts will file and consider it already amended under the 19th.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Can a woman be President of the United States sans a Constitutional Amendment? (3/27/2016 7:17:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic I dont think that is what he said. And on the whole isnt everyone agreeing that only a moron would attempt to say a woman cant be president and be correct?? Then you would be wrong. If you can reinterpret a contract (which the US Constitution was intended to be) from one side without the other side getting a say, that's precisely what Awareness said. I too am an orginalist. (Although I believe, Scalia was a partisan hack, masquerading as an originalist. But that's beside the point). I believe (and it is just a belief) the framers intended the President to be male. I also believe, through the amendment process, that they opened the door for change (e.g. slavery, woman voting, etc.) I also believe, that a woman could certainly have the qualifications to be President (although, the two running this cycle failed miserably as leaders in their last jobs and do not have such qualifications) I also believe that the Constitution SHOULD be amended to specifically enumerate that the President can be of either gender. (Whether it MUST be in order for a woman to be President is doubtful.) I don't think they intended the President to be male, even though they may have figured that would be the case. In my previous links, there were examples where use of both gender pronouns was dropped for the male gender pronoun (which is used when the referred parties are of either male gender or mixed genders) or a gender-neutral word. It might be interesting to see research into Madison's minutes of the Constitutional Convention regarding this (though I admit I'm not going to do the research myself).

MrRodgers -> RE: Can a woman be President of the United States sans a Constitutional Amendment? (3/27/2016 7:43:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Regardless of what the framers intended - we are a long way from that ever actually mattering, now aren't we. The Supreme court would hold that the equal protection clauses would take precedence. Yea, I agree here. The founders just never dreamed of a black man being president...let alone a woman but that didn't mean they couldn't be...someday. Thus, it never 'provisionally' crossed their minds. I.e., we have to rely upon other measures such as equal protection at least...in this case. There are a few very big deals the so-called 'originalist' have not stuck too, so the constitution is always politically malleable. One could even intellectually start with humans being chattel property yet be counted as 3/5 of a 'person.' Just how does one logically justify that reasoning.

MrRodgers -> RE: Can a woman be President of the United States sans a Constitutional Amendment? (3/27/2016 8:04:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire Uk constitution rules, no idea (do any of you know?) regarding feeble women, and let us never forget Margaret Thatcher who was as mad as bag of owls A bag of owls doesn't sound mad at all. To the contrary it seems quite a hoot. Well played, sir. Well played, indeed! Michael I don't know, I've heard owls are really quite vicious. I wouldn't want to stick my hand in there.

mnottertail -> RE: Can a woman be President of the United States sans a Constitutional Amendment? (3/27/2016 8:21:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne the courts would simply apply the 19th amendment. the us constitution is ONLY a living document in the respect it can be amended in accord with due process of law, no other way. No. The effect of the constitution is determined by its application by the Supreme Court. The constitution is indeed a living document, because its interpretation is subject to change. The US Constitution can only be changed by amendment. I am an originalist, in that I believe each part needs to be interpreted as originally intended, not as changing meanings and interpretations have altered that. Then you are howling at congress continually over standing armies, and how the 2nd amendment has been perverted? How the right to protect yourself from unreasonable search and seizure and to be secure in your person has been taken away?

Real0ne -> RE: Can a woman be President of the United States sans a Constitutional Amendment? (3/27/2016 8:23:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic I dont think that is what he said. And on the whole isnt everyone agreeing that only a moron would attempt to say a woman cant be president and be correct?? Then you would be wrong. If you can reinterpret a contract (which the US Constitution was intended to be) from one side without the other side getting a say, that's precisely what Awareness said. I too am an orginalist. (Although I believe, Scalia was a partisan hack, masquerading as an originalist. But that's beside the point). I believe (and it is just a belief) the framers intended the President to be male. I also believe, through the amendment process, that they opened the door for change (e.g. slavery, woman voting, etc.) I also believe, that a woman could certainly have the qualifications to be President (although, the two running this cycle failed miserably as leaders in their last jobs and do not have such qualifications) I also believe that the Constitution SHOULD be amended to specifically enumerate that the President can be of either gender. (Whether it MUST be in order for a woman to be President is doubtful.) I don't think they intended the President to be male, even though they may have figured that would be the case. In my previous links, there were examples where use of both gender pronouns was dropped for the male gender pronoun (which is used when the referred parties are of either male gender or mixed genders) or a gender-neutral word. It might be interesting to see research into Madison's minutes of the Constitutional Convention regarding this (though I admit I'm not going to do the research myself). I agree, the 19th renders 'he' to be construed as figurative. However in so far as the convention is concerned, they fail to talk about how they were not granted the authority to make the constitution in the first place. the convention was chartered ONLY to modify the AoC, which would have resulted in 50 kingdoms in union instead of what we have now which is 50 nobledoms under one kingdom [;)] Where have I seen that before? [8D]

mnottertail -> RE: Can a woman be President of the United States sans a Constitutional Amendment? (3/27/2016 9:22:20 AM)
Nowhere in credible places. They were granted certain authorities, and as the situation was motile, those authorities evolved over time for MOST States. Those who were not given further authority voted questions as directed within their purview. You can read about it in the original, free of the taint that is slobbered about here.

Awareness -> RE: Can a woman be President of the United States sans a Constitutional Amendment? (3/27/2016 9:33:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne "The Constitution isn't a contract, false No. True. The Constitution is not a contract. A contract contains several ideas, the notion of offer and acceptance, an exchange of value and legal intent. The constitution is not optional, does not constitute offer and acceptance and is not consented to by anyone in the USA. It is a fundamental assertion of governmental authority over the governed. Put bluntly, you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. quote: it's the fundamental law of the land, true which no statute may contravene." false Might want to hit a few books to understand why. Now that's some real irony right there. I'm afraid you have no idea what the FUCK you're talking about. Any statute which attempts to contravene the Constitution may be held void. Period.

MrRodgers -> RE: Can a woman be President of the United States sans a Constitutional Amendment? (3/27/2016 9:48:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Nowhere in credible places. They were granted certain authorities, and as the situation was motile, those authorities evolved over time for MOST States. Those who were not given further authority voted questions as directed within their purview. You can read about it in the original, free of the taint that is slobbered about here. Well certainly not after Bork made it most clear. "The 10th amendment 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.' is the most dead-letter amendment in the constitution." That not being very motile, [it] right there would have been enough to get my no vote. Rather than define 'Federalism' that was to specifically limit...'Federalism.' But don't tell that to the capitalist on the court, as they set about using the ICC to put the feds...'uberall.'

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625