Posted on 02/16/2008 2:11:10 PM PST by Sub-Driver
Then let us hope, in the event that Mrs. Clinton wins the nomination, that if this not be the means of halting her ascent to power, another means will present itself ...
Though, quite honestly, I believe the point will be moot as Mr. Obama will likely be the one who fills the post.
Is there anything in the Constitution to preclude a woman, other than the use of a male pronoun? Given that the Constitution uses exclusively male pronouns even in language which is obviously applicable to women, I see no honest way to read such language as disqualifying women.
Had the Constitution said "Only a man aged 35 or older...", one could argue for the clear literal meaning. If it said "No man shall become President who..." one could argue that the meaning was clearly intended to restrict the Presidency to males, though one might argue that while it restricts which males may become President, it leaves females completely unrestricted (so a 12-year-old illegal alien girl could take the job, for example).
As it is, it uses the term "person" along with the pronoun "he", which is as close to gender-neutral language as would have been used in the 1700's.
bump
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.