A complete analysis of the 19th Amendment and the history of its application in modern American politics is available at: The only thing I can see in Article II which would suggest that the President must be a man is the extensive use of the pronoun "he". I would hardly suggest that as being meaningful evidence, especially given the use of the gender-neutral "person" rather than "man", and the use of the pronoun "he" in many other situations, such as:
- Article I.2: No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.
- Article I.2: No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.
- Article IV.2: A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.
- Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Should I go on?
I suggest you follow the link that I submitted earlier, so as to further your knowledge of the matter, and am curious as to why a professed conservative would be attempting to argue “for” Hillary Clinton to be President.
Would not a conservative be interested in exploring any possible means of insuring that the Clintons not be once again placed in a position of power, even if said conservative does not agree that the proposed legal exception may/may not be applicable?
I presented the opinion merely as a point of interest. You seem to be taking it as a personal attack on your familiarity with Constitutional Law, which if indeed it may be your area of expertise, is not a justifiable point of debate, as the Constitutional application of this matter is something that you will not have the opportunity to decide outside of this virtual realm. Though you obviously disagree, in my opinion, any methodology which may prevent Mrs. Clinton from acquiring the office should be explored, not ignored.