quote:

ORIGINAL: teentie

many years ago , we in u.k had a female prime minister, she did a wonderful job.

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?

I await your citation

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.

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.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

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??

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.)

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

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.

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

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.

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).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

"The Constitution isn't a contract,

false

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.

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.