Posted on 06/23/2004 9:09:44 AM PDT by ServesURight
I think that he would probably say all the PC crude for gender neutral language changes in Bibles is crap and not needed. He would say that general use of "he" is actually gender neutral in many cases.
Unfortuanantly, he is using PC arguements he wouldn't support as the only crutch to this claim and I think that the whole claim is idiotic.
While I have doubts about Bill's ability to president again, I see no way the Supreme Court would deny Hillary the office if she chose to run and did, indeed win it.
First of all, why assume that the Supreme Court is beholden to our Constitution? They seem to overlook it whenever it suits them (see Affirmative Action, CFR, etc.) Secondly, they just need the four liberals and one swing vote - O'Connor - to rule that wives are not subject to the Constitutional restraints on their husbands and voila! - President Hillary.
The author may be right about the Constitution but there's no way his view is going to prevail on the current Court.
By the way, someone might want to inform the author that it's Amendment #22, not #25, that prohibits someone from serving more than two terms as President.
Two-for-one. She was Co-President. 8 years and out.
"Because she cannot constitutionally fill the vacancy caused by the death, resignation, impeachment and removal of any US president under whom she served."
That has nothing to do with gender, and, if read literally, would also disqualify cabinet secretaries.
The author's point has everything to do with gender. Does the US Constitution say that the person holding the office of VP can not be someone ineligble for the Presidency? Yes, it does. Does it say the same of cabinet members? No, it doesn't. A cabinet member, and we have had some, could be under 35 or foreign born. Does that mean they were ineligible to be a cabinet member? No. By your reasoning you could say that a foreign-born person can be President because Henry Kissinger was Secretary of State. Because of what the US Constitution says, Kissinger is not eligible for the Presidency or the VP. Whether he served as a cabinet member has absolutely nothing to do with whether a woman can be President or VP.
What would happen if such a person were in line to be President due to a disaster that wiped out all others ahead of him in the line of succession? I don't know. Perhaps they would be skipped. Just as a woman would be if the author's opinion is correct. Again, his piece has nothing to do with First Ladies or cabinet members.
We have a very low tolerance for stupid, sloppy scholarship here.
I am not a scholar but I still find his assertions worth looking into. First, though, you need to grasp what he is saying, before you can pronounce judgment on it, don't you think?
There's not much to look into. The Constitution repeatedly states that "No person not having attained the age..." or "No person shall be qualified for President...", etc., rather than "No man...", which would be the case if only men were contemplated.
To make the case for an outright prohibition that was never actually stated in the document despite ample opportunity, simply upon the use of a pronoun which has very often been understood to apply to both genders under various circumstances, is simply not thinking.
But Dubya can run in '08 since he stole the '00 election. If he steals theis election then he can also run in '12.
I would say more than likely you are correct. The authors of the Constitution had ample opportunity to clearly state that the President had to be a man but did not do so. The question then becomes one of "why". Did they simply have no opinion on a woman becoming President? Or was the idea so foreign to them that it would have seemed ridiculous to include that requisite? At that time, weren't all voters and office holders white, property-owning males?
I think it's something like that. It's unknown for sure whether or not they thought it would never happen - certainly their mother country had had female chief executives, some of whom (Elizabeth, for example) had been recognized as quite able leaders - but I have a hard time imagining that they were seriously contemplating such an idea. Then again, their use of the word "person" rather than "man" (in contrast to the DoI - "all men are created equal") may suggest that the possibility was rattling around in their minds, at least on some level.
Were they?
I was at work when I posted it - I wanted to get it out there and then go back to working hard hehehe
People get hung up on something- like the use of "person" and "he"- in the Constitution and invest it with a deep significance unsupported by history. Sometimes very stubbornly.
The Founders did not intend "he" to exclude women- though probably only because they didn't think they needed to!
"Wyoming women moved more slowly. Women began to sit on grand and petit juries in 1870, and their presence made male jurors drop the practice of drinking, gambling, and smoking and chewing tobacco during breaks while on duty.
By 1871, judges had "stopped the use of women on juries..."
Ok, first let me say I'm sorry. I was short and less tactful than I usually am. I admit I'm worried about a fellow freeper who has requested prayers and I'm not feeling to hot myself. I was e-mailing her and posting to her when I saw this thread and was reading it and the responses when I saw you ask the person who posted it about bumping within 24 seconds of the original post.
I wanted to explain that I was always taught to bump my own posts to get them "out there". The way it was explained to me is it keeps it on "top". It's been done a thousand times since we joined FR.
I've always liked you and was surprised that you seemed to question the poster. So I was just trying to explain that I was under the impression you bumped your own posts too.
Seems both our motives were good ones.
FRegards FRiend
Then it's water under the bridge. FReegards.
Is it really that hard to face the probability that the framers wanted a man for President? I say, amend the Constitution to allow women presidents...AFTER Hillary dies.
Totally delusional nonsense
Were they?
I believe they were. I can't think of anyone who wasn't at that time.
bttt
To receive the most electoral votes?
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.