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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

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.

quote:

The Declaration of Independence says, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” This means that government gets all its power from the people. The people set up the government.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix

It was looooong ago deemed that "he/his" meant....."us/they/them".

## Thus endeth the lesson ##

At the time of the writing of the constitution women could not vote. Thus could not stand for public office.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix

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?

It was looooong ago deemed that "he/his" meant....."us/they/them".

## Thus endeth the lesson ##

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

Interesting question, this. I've sometimes wondered how people are able blithely to forget about the 2nd and how it applies to *the people*. The 2nd makes no mention of 'adults'. So, why is it that the USA's adults are generally so apparently free of qualms about giving their toddlers and babies firearms? And why has no one invented a gun for foetuses - since, as we all know, yet-to-be-born children are, after all, still people?

I don't know .... re the subject of the OP: Maybe, if one were to transport the Founding Fathers to the modern day by means of a Tardis or the like, they'd say, 'Look, just because we're called the 'Founding Fathers', that doesn't mean you should all think and act like our half-witted kids. Why don't you just use your common sense, you blithering simpletons?'

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
They take a possed picture of a toddler with an EMPTY gun on facebook and pretend that this means the parents let the kids carry guns around unsupervised. It is another piece of propagada that you believe because you never see the truth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

Interesting question, this. I've sometimes wondered how people are able blithely to forget about the 2nd and how it applies to *the people*. The 2nd makes no mention of 'adults'. So, why is it that the USA's adults are generally so apparently free of qualms about giving their toddlers and babies firearms? And why has no one invented a gun for foetuses - since, as we all know, yet-to-be-born children are, after all, still people?

I don't know .... re the subject of the OP: Maybe, if one were to transport the Founding Fathers to the modern day by means of a Tardis or the like, they'd say, 'Look, just because we're called the 'Founding Fathers', that doesn't mean you should all think and act like our half-witted kids. Why don't you just use your common sense, you blithering simpletons?'

Perhaps the reason you can't understand the lack of qualms American adults have with giving firearms to toddlers is because it doesn't exist. The media totally misrepresents this as they do with most things having to do with firearms.
They take a possed picture of a toddler with an EMPTY gun on facebook and pretend that this means the parents let the kids carry guns around unsupervised. It is another piece of propagada that you believe because you never see the truth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
They take a possed picture of a toddler with an EMPTY gun on facebook and pretend that this means the parents let the kids carry guns around unsupervised. It is another piece of propagada that you believe because you never see the truth.

I think you read me wrong and that that might be down to my mis-phrasing. I'm sure US adults *do* have qualms about giving guns to toddlers. But my point was that, theoretically, they shouldn't - because, per the 2nd, toddlers are after all *people*.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

Interesting question, this. I've sometimes wondered how people are able blithely to forget about the 2nd and how it applies to *the people*. The 2nd makes no mention of 'adults'. So, why is it that the USA's adults are generally so apparently free of qualms about giving their toddlers and babies firearms? And why has no one invented a gun for foetuses - since, as we all know, yet-to-be-born children are, after all, still people?

I don't know .... re the subject of the OP: Maybe, if one were to transport the Founding Fathers to the modern day by means of a Tardis or the like, they'd say, 'Look, just because we're called the 'Founding Fathers', that doesn't mean you should all think and act like our half-witted kids. Why don't you just use your common sense, you blithering simpletons?'

Perhaps the reason you can't understand the lack of qualms American adults have with giving firearms to toddlers is because it doesn't exist. The media totally misrepresents this as they do with most things having to do with firearms.
They take a possed picture of a toddler with an EMPTY gun on facebook and pretend that this means the parents let the kids carry guns around unsupervised. It is another piece of propagada that you believe because you never see the truth.

I giggle like a 9 year old fuckin schoolgirl every time some 2 year old kid shoots their mullet headed toothless ol momma/sister/aunt/girlfriend welfare bitch from the shopping cart at Wal-Mart. The second amendment is definitely a right extended to children,and imbeciles, as our founding fathers intended. "merika!!!!! drops mic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

You missed the case of the gun rights activist whose toddler shot her in the back?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

Interesting question, this. I've sometimes wondered how people are able blithely to forget about the 2nd and how it applies to *the people*. The 2nd makes no mention of 'adults'. So, why is it that the USA's adults are generally so apparently free of qualms about giving their toddlers and babies firearms? And why has no one invented a gun for foetuses - since, as we all know, yet-to-be-born children are, after all, still people?

I don't know .... re the subject of the OP: Maybe, if one were to transport the Founding Fathers to the modern day by means of a Tardis or the like, they'd say, 'Look, just because we're called the 'Founding Fathers', that doesn't mean you should all think and act like our half-witted kids. Why don't you just use your common sense, you blithering simpletons?'

Perhaps the reason you can't understand the lack of qualms American adults have with giving firearms to toddlers is because it doesn't exist. The media totally misrepresents this as they do with most things having to do with firearms.
They take a possed picture of a toddler with an EMPTY gun on facebook and pretend that this means the parents let the kids carry guns around unsupervised. It is another piece of propagada that you believe because you never see the truth.

I giggle like a 9 year old fuckin schoolgirl every time some 2 year old kid shoots their mullet headed toothless ol momma/sister/aunt/girlfriend welfare bitch from the shopping cart at Wal-Mart. The second amendment is definitely a right extended to children,and imbeciles, as our founding fathers intended. "merika!!!!! drops mic.

You like to see anyone you disagree with hurt, dead even better.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

Interesting question, this. I've sometimes wondered how people are able blithely to forget about the 2nd and how it applies to *the people*. The 2nd makes no mention of 'adults'. So, why is it that the USA's adults are generally so apparently free of qualms about giving their toddlers and babies firearms? And why has no one invented a gun for foetuses - since, as we all know, yet-to-be-born children are, after all, still people?

I don't know .... re the subject of the OP: Maybe, if one were to transport the Founding Fathers to the modern day by means of a Tardis or the like, they'd say, 'Look, just because we're called the 'Founding Fathers', that doesn't mean you should all think and act like our half-witted kids. Why don't you just use your common sense, you blithering simpletons?'

Perhaps the reason you can't understand the lack of qualms American adults have with giving firearms to toddlers is because it doesn't exist. The media totally misrepresents this as they do with most things having to do with firearms.
They take a possed picture of a toddler with an EMPTY gun on facebook and pretend that this means the parents let the kids carry guns around unsupervised. It is another piece of propagada that you believe because you never see the truth.

I giggle like a 9 year old fuckin schoolgirl every time some 2 year old kid shoots their mullet headed toothless ol momma/sister/aunt/girlfriend welfare bitch from the shopping cart at Wal-Mart. The second amendment is definitely a right extended to children,and imbeciles, as our founding fathers intended. "merika!!!!! drops mic.

You like to see anyone you disagree with hurt, dead even better.

That statement my RIFfed welfare friend, explicitly states that you agree with her and her childs actions as a patriotic act. See if you can fix your logic a bit, while shooting pizza boys. As it stands it is a perfect example of imbecilic nutsuckerism though.