HILLARY CAN'T CONSTITUTIONALLY BE ELECTED PRESIDENT - OR VICE-PRESIDENT EITHER

Jon Christian Ryter ^ | 06/23/04 | Jon Christian Ryter

[dirtboy]

Yes, twice. That's why he's currently ineligible for the presidency, and hence, the vice presidency.

And that makes Hillary ineligible because???

[Salvation]

**Moreover, the Founding Fathers specifically wrote into the Constitution a male-gendered office called President. Article II, Section 1 begins: "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 with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected as follows..." You really do not have to read further to realize the role of President of the United States is gender-specific.**

How will the dimocrats trample this one?

[inquest]

I didn't say it made her ineligible. I said that he's ineligible for the vice presidency for the same reason that (according to the author) she's ineligible for the vice presidency: Both putatively are inelgible for the presidency.

[steve-b]

the Constitution itself barred women from voting and, by extension, from holding office

Yes, one needs an "extension" to reach those tricky emanations from the penumbra.

As for the notion that standard English usage of the male pronoun in generic situations is legally meaningful, only one reply is warranted:

[dirtboy]

I said that he's ineligible for the vice presidency for the same reason that (according to the author) she's ineligible for the vice presidency: Both putatively are inelgible for the presidency.

And why is Hillary ineligible???

[steve-b]

In an interesting side note to Ferraro's candidacy in 1984, the Republicans captured 57% of all of the female votes that year. It seems that, other than the diehard party loyalists and feminists, not even the women of America wanted a woman anywhere near the White House—except, perhaps, as First Lady.
This strike anyone else as completely ludicrous?

This writer sounds just like a left-winger trying to desperately spin away the fact that, yes, the American electorate did like, approve, and support the late Ronald Wilson Reagan.

[RobFromGa]

Idiotic ramblings. This is one to skip.

[Poohbah]

Try writing something in English with non-gendered pronouns and get back to me. I wrote a science-fiction story once without giving a couple of entities gender, and it was a bitch.

You could always have the all-gendered pronoun--female, male, and neuter: s/he/it.

[mtbopfuyn]

That is so last century.

[dirtboy]

You could always have the all-gendered pronoun--female, male, and neuter: s/he/it.

The goddamn Shiites have nothing to do with it! (to paraphrase Sherrif Buford T. Justice).

[steve-b]

Well, technically, one might argue that the 22nd Amendment doesn't make Slick ineligible for the office of President in the future -- only ineligible to be elected to that office again.

[steve-b]

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.

This leads directly to the (absurd) notion that the current law of presidential succession is un-Constitutional.

[moodyskeptic]

The writer apparently forgets that we've already had Hillary as defacto President. Don't you all remember during the 91 campaign, the media breathlessly told us we'd get Hillary as a "bonus" with Bill? The Left clucked that it was the only way to get the "smartest woman in America" into the White House, inferring that Bill was a mere prop.

Richard Poe's book "Hillary's Secret War" shows clearly that Hillary was the acting President , while Bill was the charming beard out front. Dick Morris repeats it often: Hillary called the shots, while Bill stumbled through his little scandals. He spoke to the cameras.

A cursory examination of their public personalities supports this opinion.

[dirtboy]

Well, technically, one might argue that the 22nd Amendment doesn't make Slick ineligible for the office of President in the future -- only ineligible to be elected to that office again.

Yeah, technically Slick could be appointed, say, Secretary of State or become President Pro Tempe of the Senate, and be eligible for succession - but as far as a cabinet position, what president in their right mind would appoint Slick to such? The first act of each cabinet meeting would be for the president to chase Slick out of his chair.

[dirtboy]

This leads directly to the (absurd) notion that the current law of presidential succession is un-Constitutional.

'xactly. Every claim in this article is easily debunked by looking at current events. Congressmembers are referred to as "he" by the Constitution - but we have female Congresscritters.

[steve-b]

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.

My recollection is that the presidential succession law states somewhere in the boilerplate that an officeholder ineligible to succeed to the Presidency (i.e. not a native-born citizen or younger than 35) would indeed be skipped over for the next in line.

[steve-b]

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

I wouldn't be surprised if some crank with nothing better to do has in fact gone to court to make this goofball argument against a female Congresscritter who had annoyed him somehow. If the judge also had nothing better to do that day, there may be an actual legal precedent formally declaring that the argument is without merit.

[Dustbunny]

Hope this is true in all counts

[dirtboy]

My recollection is that the presidential succession law states somewhere in the boilerplate that an officeholder ineligible to succeed to the Presidency (i.e. not a native-born citizen or younger than 35) would indeed be skipped over for the next in line.

You are correct - here is the relevant text of the Presidential Succession Act of 1947:

(1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is no President pro tempore to act as President under subsection (b) of this section, then the officer of the United States who is highest on the following list, and who is not under disability to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President

[steve-b]

...as far as a cabinet position, what president in their right mind would appoint Slick to such? The first act of each cabinet meeting would be for the president to chase Slick out of his chair.

ROFL! Yeah, I can just picture it!