[supercat]

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.

[supercat]

BTW, I should mention that the style of inquiry you're going into here is dangerous. Although most of the writing in the Constitution is plain and unambiguous, it is not written to be bulletproof. Hyper-literal interpretation of the Constitution is not a path conservatives should welcome.

Consider the Second Amendment. Even setting aside the questions of militia, arms, etc. consider the basic phrasing "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A hyper-literal interpretation would be that it protects those people who have a right to keep and bear arms (their right shall not be infringed). Presumably some person or group of people has the right, but the Constitution doesn't explicitly say that any particular person or group has it.

Or consider the Sixth Amendment: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." If a city were to take someone's property and give it to someone else without any compensation, would that violate the Sixth Amendment? Since private property would not have been taken for public use without just compensation, there would be no violation.

Do you want to encourage such hyper-literalism? I for one do not.

[Cpt.]

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.