Posted on 01/29/2019 12:42:21 PM PST by ChicagoConservative27
Tuesday on ABC’s “The View,” co-host Joy Behar said only America could not “see our way through the misogyny” to elect a woman president.
During a discussion about the candidacy of Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), Behar said, “You know, I don’t think you can ignore the possibility that people in this country will not vote for a woman based on experience. We just put in office a reality star who thought Frederick Douglass was alive. And men in huge numbers voted for him. I think that they will do it again, the men.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I know ... Constitution is a dead letter.
It’s still true: Barry Hussein was ineligible, so is Kamaltoe.
Hillary is a bad person
The cow says: moooooo
Joy should run.
What does the fox say?
As a bonus she smells bad,too.
Don’t recall hearing her complain about the treatment Sarah Palin got!
Is this a trick question?
That’s BS!
I would have been just fine with Sarah Palin and her dad
Congress ignores any part of the Constitution it finds inconvenient, as have most presidents. The Courts are worse: they claim the Constitution means “black” when the word is clearly “white”.
A stupid Marxist woman who hasn’t a clue about competence promoting identity politics. Nothing new here...move on.
Jeannie Pirro: What about her as a replacement for RBG?
What an awful thing to say about her buddy, Bill Clinton. /sarc Hypocrite.
Mexico has never had a woman president? Neither has Japan or China or Russia or France.
India and Pakistan killed their female leaders. Canada’s was so bad, it’s like she beat herself to a pulp. May of Britian isnt that far off.
The left hated Thatcher or Golda Meir.
Observing the female Democrat wannabes, don’t think right minded people would want them in charge of anything.
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
As a side note to this thread please consider the following.
With all due respect to Ms Behar, what she doesn’t seem to understand about the powers of POTUS, along with probably most other post-17th Amendment ratification citizen and illegal alien voters, is the following.
The only express constitutional power that the states have given the feds to deal with womens’ issues deals only with voting rights, evidenced by the 19th Amendment.
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation [emphasis added]."
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
So both men and women who try to get elected POTUS on the promise of civil rights protections for women outside the scope of voting issues are crooks imo, unthinkingly trying to expand the already unconstitutionally big federal governments without express constitutional authority to do so.
In fact, since the individual states have the 10th Amendment-protected power to make the civil rights protections that the feds have no express constitutional authority to make, women should consider running for governors.
”... the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Federal Constitution, is in the States, and not in the Federal Government [emphases added].” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1866. (See about middle of 3rd column.)
"It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” — Justice Brandeis, Laboratories of democracy.
Note that state civil rights laws that protect women cannot effectively establish women as a protected / privileged class, rob any state of a republican form of government, or abridge the constitutionally enumerated rights of citizens.
"Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility [emphases added]."
"Article IV, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government [emphasis added], and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
”14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Insights welcome.
LOL! What a Perfectly Pithy Sentence! BTTT!!!!
I have zero need or want for a female president now or ever.
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.