Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: supercat
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.

218 posted on 02/17/2008 12:10:43 PM PST by Cpt.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies ]


To: Cpt.
I suggest you follow the link that I submitted earlier

I read the article you linked in post #213. Nothing there cited any specific language in the Constitution that would forbid a woman from becoming President. He refers to gender distinctions in Article II.1, but I hardly consider those evidence of anything unless females are supposed to be exempt from extradition (see Article IV) but also exempt from some of the protections in Amendment VI.

219 posted on 02/17/2008 12:17:05 PM PST by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson