Clinton & Carly CANNOT Be President!

[Cecilie1200]

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 ***** will be on a ballot.

Clinton should be disqualified because she's an unindicted criminal, not because she's - allegedly - a woman.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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 ***** will be on a ballot.

Nothing was gender neutral when that was written and it was written gender specific.

No, dipshit, "he" is a gender-neutral pronoun in English unless referring to a very specific, known person whose sex has been established. It is, and always has been, the standard way to refer in a generalized way to an individual person.

It was most certainly NOT written gender specific, otherwise they would have said "man" in all the places where they said "person". Please note that they declined to do so.

 

[Iron Head]

BRAVO!!!!

 

[Cecilie1200]

The OP is an embarrassment. You will probably cause people to vote for hitlary and Carly

The OP is about the LAW. Is the LAW just? No, it needs to be changed. But it needs to be changed BEFORE any woman takes office NOT after.

And in truth there is NO after. Its grounds to NOT swear her in even.

No, shitbreath, the OP is about your ignorance masquerading as the law.

Had the Founding Fathers specifically wanted the President to only ever be a man, don't you think that while they were writing up that whole big Article on requirements for being President, they could and would have thrown in "and be male" somewhere after, for example, "35 years of age"? Not like it would have required a lot of extra time and ink.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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 ***** will be on a ballot.

Nothing was gender neutral when that was written and it was written gender specific.

That is not true. People didn't start worrying about the fact that English has no gender neutral third person personal pronoun until the 60s and 70s due to feminism. Before then, people simply used the word "he" to refer to a person of an unknown gender.

Your argument is a loser, and will NEVER prevail in court.

More then a few layers could tie it up. At least to the point she is NOT sworn in.

Stop being such a *****. You don't want Hillary to be President? Then man the **** up and beat her in the election. Stop trying to weasel around and re-invent the rules of English grammar. That's leftist-think, and you should be embarrassed to be such a sneaky, weasely little pantyboy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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 ***** will be on a ballot.

Nothing was gender neutral when that was written and it was written gender specific.

That is not true. People didn't start worrying about the fact that English has no gender neutral third person personal pronoun until the 60s and 70s due to feminism. Before then, people simply used the word "he" to refer to a person of an unknown gender.

Your argument is a loser, and will NEVER prevail in court.

More then a few layers could tie it up. At least to the point she is NOT sworn in.

No way. You would be dismissed out of court immediately. It is simply a fact that in English "he" may mean a person of unspecified gender. The use of "he" in that passage does not indicate that the President has to be a male. To say that, you have to act like there aren't thousands of occurrences in English where he was used in a gender neutral sense. Which is a blatant falsehood. No court would even consider your argument.

Well, yeah. Because judges can read English.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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 ***** will be on a ballot.

Nothing was gender neutral when that was written and it was written gender specific.

That is not true. People didn't start worrying about the fact that English has no gender neutral third person personal pronoun until the 60s and 70s due to feminism. Before then, people simply used the word "he" to refer to a person of an unknown gender.

Your argument is a loser, and will NEVER prevail in court.

More then a few layers could tie it up. At least to the point she is NOT sworn in.

No way. You would be dismissed out of court immediately. It is simply a fact that in English "he" may mean a person of unspecified gender. The use of "he" in that passage does not indicate that the President has to be a male. To say that, you have to act like there aren't thousands of occurrences in English where he was used in a gender neutral sense. Which is a blatant falsehood. No court would even consider your argument.

Just like McDonalds not putting a warning on HOT coffee that said HOT coffee. It WILL be looked at BEFORE any swearing and their WILL be suits. Count on it.

No there won't. No lawyer would humiliate himself publicly by even trying this. Even bottom-feeding ambulance chasers have more pride than to look this ignorant.

 

[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

That's a good example of why the Constitution of the U.S of A. has to be considered an organic (or "living") document. The anachronisms, changing mores of the nation and technological realities demand such an approach.

Not even a little bit.

 

[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

Interesting point. Certainly when you consider women couldn't even vote when that was being written it raises a valid point.

Wrong. Spare us the public-school leftist fallacies.

Some women could, some couldn't. Depended on the law where they lived.

There is no point, valid or otherwise, being raised here. Had the Framers wanted to bar women from ever holding the Presidency, they would have just said so. I mean, they were in the middle of writing the laws for qualifying for office, for crying out loud.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Good article here about it,
Are Women Allowed to Be President?

"It’s a question that’s rarely asked and on its face seems ridiculous: Are women allowed to become president of the United States? But nearly a century after women gained the constitutional right to vote, many Americans would be surprised to find the answer isn’t simple.

That’s because Article II of the Constitution, which lays out the qualifications and duties of the president, uses the word “he” 16 times to describe the holder of that office.
...

Discussion of the Constitution's use of “he” to describe the president likely will remain academic. The last time Hillary Clinton ran for president, losing to Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic primary, an 80-year-old Nevada man sued to keep her off the ballot.

That case, filed in state court, was dismissed.

John Banzhaf, a professor at the George Washington University Law School, says anyone challenging in court the constitutionality of a female president would fail.

He points out there wasn't a lawsuit to boot Sarah Palin from the GOP ticket in 2008 or Geraldine Ferraro from the Democratic vice presidential spot in 1984."

Related question occurs, if slaves were 3/5ths a free man, where does blacks as President appear? Can you really imagine the Founders accepting a black President, or a female one?

Hooray. You managed to find another halfwit like Darkfury who actually has a published column in which to embarrass himself.

Doesn't make it a good article OR a valid point. It just means this fool somehow managed to graduate from a journalism school without learning English grammar.

Sad indictment of our colleges.

 

[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

Interesting point. Certainly when you consider women couldn't even vote when that was being written it raises a valid point.

I don't personally have a problem with it, but like Justice Scalia I'm a textualist. Show me where it says it's permitted.

Oh, for crying out loud unprintably. If we're going to have laws stating every single thing that's permitted, we're going to need every building in Washington DC just to store the paper they're written on, moron.

Laws are primarily about specifying what ISN'T permitted, on the assumption that everything else is allowed. The Constitution most especially. Once again, had the Founding Fathers wanted to exclude women from holding the Presidency, they'd have said so, the same way they very clearly said that they wanted to exclude anyone under the age of 35 from holding it.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Good article here about it,
Are Women Allowed to Be President?

"It’s a question that’s rarely asked and on its face seems ridiculous: Are women allowed to become president of the United States? But nearly a century after women gained the constitutional right to vote, many Americans would be surprised to find the answer isn’t simple.

That’s because Article II of the Constitution, which lays out the qualifications and duties of the president, uses the word “he” 16 times to describe the holder of that office.
...

Discussion of the Constitution's use of “he” to describe the president likely will remain academic. The last time Hillary Clinton ran for president, losing to Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic primary, an 80-year-old Nevada man sued to keep her off the ballot.

That case, filed in state court, was dismissed.

John Banzhaf, a professor at the George Washington University Law School, says anyone challenging in court the constitutionality of a female president would fail.

He points out there wasn't a lawsuit to boot Sarah Palin from the GOP ticket in 2008 or Geraldine Ferraro from the Democratic vice presidential spot in 1984."

Related question occurs, if slaves were 3/5ths a free man, where does blacks as President appear? Can you really imagine the Founders accepting a black President, or a female one?

Hooray. You managed to find another halfwit like Darkfury who actually has a published column in which to embarrass himself.

Doesn't make it a good article OR a valid point. It just means this fool somehow managed to graduate from a journalism school without learning English grammar.

Sad indictment of our colleges.

Insulting a source only makes you appear as though you have no logic or evidence to refute it so you're making it personal. "I disagree with you but can't explain why or offer any evidence refuting your claim so you look like your mom dresses you haha!" :/

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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

Interesting point. Certainly when you consider women couldn't even vote when that was being written it raises a valid point.

I don't personally have a problem with it, but like Justice Scalia I'm a textualist. Show me where it says it's permitted.

Oh, for crying out loud unprintably. If we're going to have laws stating every single thing that's permitted, we're going to need every building in Washington DC just to store the paper they're written on, moron.

Laws are primarily about specifying what ISN'T permitted, on the assumption that everything else is allowed. The Constitution most especially. Once again, had the Founding Fathers wanted to exclude women from holding the Presidency, they'd have said so, the same way they very clearly said that they wanted to exclude anyone under the age of 35 from holding it.

You're way beyond in this thread, scroll back to page 1 and start reading.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

It REQUIRES you to successfully defeat the reams of arguments and evidence you've been given and utterly ignored in favor of restating your assertion over and over.

Good luck with that, chickenshit.

No wonder you're so misogynistic. Any "man" who's a big a poltroon as you are would be terrified of women.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Good article here about it,
Are Women Allowed to Be President?

"It’s a question that’s rarely asked and on its face seems ridiculous: Are women allowed to become president of the United States? But nearly a century after women gained the constitutional right to vote, many Americans would be surprised to find the answer isn’t simple.

That’s because Article II of the Constitution, which lays out the qualifications and duties of the president, uses the word “he” 16 times to describe the holder of that office.
...

Discussion of the Constitution's use of “he” to describe the president likely will remain academic. The last time Hillary Clinton ran for president, losing to Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic primary, an 80-year-old Nevada man sued to keep her off the ballot.

That case, filed in state court, was dismissed.

John Banzhaf, a professor at the George Washington University Law School, says anyone challenging in court the constitutionality of a female president would fail.

He points out there wasn't a lawsuit to boot Sarah Palin from the GOP ticket in 2008 or Geraldine Ferraro from the Democratic vice presidential spot in 1984."

Related question occurs, if slaves were 3/5ths a free man, where does blacks as President appear? Can you really imagine the Founders accepting a black President, or a female one?

Hooray. You managed to find another halfwit like Darkfury who actually has a published column in which to embarrass himself.

Doesn't make it a good article OR a valid point. It just means this fool somehow managed to graduate from a journalism school without learning English grammar.

Sad indictment of our colleges.

Insulting a source only makes you appear as though you have no logic or evidence to refute it so you're making it personal. "I disagree with you but can't explain why or offer any evidence refuting your claim so you look like your mom dresses you haha!" :/

Whining about the tone only makes you appear as though you're afraid to address the points, which I've made repeatedly. At this point, I have no intention of continuing to treat "But I'm right; no, really, I'm right. This is TRUE!" as though it's a serious argument.

When you have addressed the points I've already made, you may demand something more than, "No, you're still a dumbass."

And don't think everyone hasn't noticed that you conveniently jumped over the multiple posts I made refuting this pile of horseshit, and went straight to this one.

You're right in there with Darkfury, hating women because you're too much of a dickless coward to establish any superiority beyond, "I have a penis, and you don't", like that's some sort of accomplishment.

 

[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

Interesting point. Certainly when you consider women couldn't even vote when that was being written it raises a valid point.

I don't personally have a problem with it, but like Justice Scalia I'm a textualist. Show me where it says it's permitted.

Oh, for crying out loud unprintably. If we're going to have laws stating every single thing that's permitted, we're going to need every building in Washington DC just to store the paper they're written on, moron.

Laws are primarily about specifying what ISN'T permitted, on the assumption that everything else is allowed. The Constitution most especially. Once again, had the Founding Fathers wanted to exclude women from holding the Presidency, they'd have said so, the same way they very clearly said that they wanted to exclude anyone under the age of 35 from holding it.

You're way beyond in this thread, scroll back to page 1 and start reading.

Scroll back to #81 and start reading, nancy boy. I will await you sacking up and addressing, rather than simply whining about the "mean little girl", but I won't hold my breath for it to happen anytime soon.

 

[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.

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

National Constitution Center - Centuries of Citizenship - Map: States grant women the right to vote

Can you BE any more ignorant, or would it take a special operation?

 

[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?

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.

no one has the right to a job

true story

 

[Two Thumbs]

Gotta say, the bitches on this thread have no sense of humor at all.


But as the great poet once said; Bitches aint shit but ho's and tricks

 

[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.

no one has the right to a job

true story

Who said they did?