[GLDNGUN]

Where in the heck did that come from? And please tell me where the position of First Lady is mentioned in the Constitution, and how that is Constitutionally-mandated service, above and beyond the absurd notion that someone who served under a president cannot fill a vacancy from that president - review the presidential succession order, which includes cabinet members, and get back to me.

I believe you completely misunderstood the author's point. It has nothing to do with being a First Lady or serving a President in any capicity (other than VP). The point the author is making is that if a woman can't be President, then neither can a woman be VP, since only people qualified to be President can serve as VP.

I find the author's opinion on the whole matter interesting. He may be right or he may be wrong. I'm disappointed in some of my fellow Freepers who have attacked this man so viciously for stating an opinion.

[dirtboy]

I believe you completely misunderstood the author's point. It has nothing to do with being a First Lady or serving a President in any capicity (other than VP). The point the author is making is that if a woman can't be President, then neither can a woman be VP, since only people qualified to be President can serve as VP.

Read this again:

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.

I find the author's opinion on the whole matter interesting. He may be right or he may be wrong. I'm disappointed in some of my fellow Freepers who have attacked this man so viciously for stating an opinion.

We have a very low tolerance for stupid, sloppy scholarship here.