Posted on 06/23/2004 9:09:44 AM PDT by ServesURight
That's my point - this person is claiming that serving under a president makes one ineligble to succeed them. And that's false.
And the gender issue has been resoundingly refuted by others. Suffice to say that when the Constitution mentions members of the House, it refers to them as "he" - but we currently have female House members, with no legal challenges to their service because of their gender - which means the writer's line of reasoning is completely irrelevant.
By golly; there is the real reason for this article! It is a tactic often used by a proponent of a particular idea namely; get the possibly best argument done with and completely out of the way before the actual event (Hellary running for the office) takes place. If he thought it would stand up in court, and if he didn't want her to win, he would simply start building the case, and wait for it. In this case he is seemingly putting his best case forward, but in all likelyhood, is hoping it will never amount to any more than a topic of discussion.
I'm afraid you are still not grasping what the author is saying. Nowhere can i find him saying that serving under a President makes on inelible to succeed him. That is preposterous. What the author IS saying is that one can't serve as VP if he/she is not eligible to serve as President. That is 100% correct. Again, this piece is not about cabinet members. It is about Presidential and VP eligilibity, period.
2nd paragraph:
Why? Because she cannot constitutionally fill the vacancy caused by the death, resignation, impeachment and removal of any US president under whom she served.
Why? Because she cannot constitutionally fill the vacancy caused by the death, resignation, impeachment and removal of any US president under whom she served.
Correct. That is the author's hypothosis: a woman can't be VP "because she cannot constitutionally fill the vacancy caused by the death, resignation, impeachment and removal of any US president under whom she served". Once again, this has nothing to do with First Ladies or cabinet members. Forget that Hillary ever was the wife of a President or served in any federal capacity. She is a woman, and that is the author's only point.
No, it's not - otherwise, the author woult not have included the phrase "under whom she served." If a woman could not serve as president because of her gender, it wouldn't matter a whit whether she had served under a president or not.
In fact, for precisely the same reason that Bill Clinton can't serve as vice president, neither can Hillary.
Considering that, according to sworn testimony from Monica Lewinsky that Bill Clinton is a male, and according to the occasionally questionable claim that Hillary Clinton is female, their gender does not come into play according to the phrase "precisely the same reason."
I'm starting to think that you better go back and do a little more reading of this article. "Under whom she served" is simply referring to the whoever the President would be with Hillary as VP. You're right that it doesn't matter a whit whether she served under a President or not IN ANY OTHER CAPACITY. Any VP is serving under a President. THAT is what the author is referring to - you can't serve as VP under a President if you are ineligible to be President. That's all.
Well..... if the bastards can say that in the 2nd amendment, the words "the people" really don't apply to all Americans, then that means that women can't serve as President, since the word "she" isn't mentioned in the Constitution.
In fact, for precisely the same reason that Bill Clinton can't serve as vice president, neither can Hillary.
Considering that, according to sworn testimony from Monica Lewinsky that Bill Clinton is a male, and according to the occasionally questionable claim that Hillary Clinton is female, their gender does not come into play according to the phrase "precisely the same reason."
Come on, you are just trying to be argumentative, right? LOL Okay, I'll explain this to you as well. "Precisely the same reason" means that, according to the author, neither Bill nor Hillary can serve as VP because they are both ineligible to serve as President. So, yes, it is for the same reason; however, it would be in opposition to different parts of the Constitution. The author claims that Hillary can't serve as VP, because as a woman she's not eligible to serve as President. Bill Clinton can't serve as VP because as a former 2-term President he's not eligible to be President.
Anything else? :-)
When is the last time a law prevented a domocrat from doing as they pleased?
Laws are to keep Republicans and peasants down is the democrat credo.
Correct and well done.
Have it your way, Mad Hatter, because words apparently mean to you what you want them to mean. To normal folks, precisely the same reason means just that. So you can have the last word if you wish to further mangle the English language.
It does mean just that. The same reason why both (in the flawed view of the author) are ineligible for the vice presidency is that both (supposedly) are ineligible for the presidency. That's the stipulation in the 12th amendment that is said to apply to the both of them.
And, once again, Bill Clinton was the legal president, no matter what claims Hillary or you or Bill may make to the contrary. It was Bill Clinton who signed legislation and was CinC (shudder) and whose name appeared next to electors on the ballot.
You can't both literally read the 12th and play games with the meaning of the word "president."
So either the reasoning is false or precisely doesn't mean precisely. Neither is complementary to the premise of the author.
This was a long article short on substance.
The one valid point it makes is that women historically have not been considered for the Presidency. Oh what a big surprise. I am shocked! /sarcasm
It gives no evidence from the section of the Constitution that actually MATTERS on qualifications for office (you know, the part it glibly ignored since the three qualifications have nothing to do with gender) that only men can be President.
The "he" argument is incredibly idiotic! I write "he" for generic people all the time.....in fact, my English teacher in HS taught me just 3 years ago that "he" is the correct pronoun for any generic reference to a person unless I want to resort to a neutral term such as "one."
In effect, this article uses a LIBERAL ARGUMENT.....that "he" or "mankind," terms such as these, are discriminatory and are meant to refer to males only.
This article is laughable on its face for that fact. Anybody who has read even a tiny bit of older literature knows that it was traditional to use masculine pronouns for generic humankind, either male or female. There is no evidence that the Constitution's reference to "he" is anything but this. If it meant something, it would have been spelled out a lot clearer. In a highly formal writing work such as a Constitution, MALE GENDER PRONOUNS WOULD HAVE BEEN USED FOR THE SAKE OF BEING PROFESSIONAL. Such pronouns do ***not*** have an anti-female meaning behind them.
This article is one big sack of elephant dung trying to smell like daisies.
This is truly one of the stupidest articles I have ever read.
Thank goodness I speed-read this sack of dung.
I guess the moron who wrote this never heard of male pronouns taking the place of both genders in formal, old-fashioned writing.
Hell, my teacher in HS several years ago still taught us to use male pronouns when referring to anybody instead of a single person (like if I said, "He will understand in reading this book..." instead of "He or she will..." or "The reader will...").
Yes, twice. That's why he's currently ineligible for the presidency, and hence, the vice presidency.
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.