HILLARY CAN'T CONSTITUTIONALLY BE ELECTED PRESIDENT - OR VICE-PRESIDENT EITHER

Jon Christian Ryter ^ | 06/23/04 | Jon Christian Ryter

[ServesURight]

BUMP

[UCANSEE2]

Hillary wasn't 'CONSTITUTIONALLY' running the office of Slickmeister when using FBI files to blackmail Senators, or arranging to have Bill's underage flings die in weird circumstances, nor does she believe in the CONSTITUTION.

[martin_fierro]

All this means nothing to the junior Senator from Illinois Arkansas New York.

[Petronski]

Ridiculous.

[dirtboy]

Nothing like confusing pronouns with reality.

[r9etb]

What a waste of bits and pixels.

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[kinsman redeemer]

ditto - What you said.

[Jalapeno]

Hard to believe someone actually wasted their time writing this.

[dirtboy]

I guess we can't have female congresscritters, either:

Clause 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.

But, gee golly whiz, we DO have femal congresscritters! Maybe that shoots a big honkin' hole through this idiotic theory.

Try writing something in English with non-gendered pronouns and get back to me. I wrote a science-fiction story once without giving a couple of entities gender, and it was a bitch.

[finnman69]

Sorry, they had me with Bill Clinton is inelegible to run again. The Hillary angle is BS.

[dirtboy]

Because she cannot constitutionally fill the vacancy caused by the death, resignation, impeachment and removal of any US president under whom she served.

Where in the heck did that come from? And please tell me where the position of First Lady is mentioned in the Constitution, and how that is Constitutionally-mandated service, above and beyond the absurd notion that someone who served under a president cannot fill a vacancy from that president - review the presidential succession order, which includes cabinet members, and get back to me.

[SedVictaCatoni]

This whole thing is silly. No court is going to rule that where a document says "he", it does not mean "he, or she", unless that document has some particular purpose to refer only to men. The Founders wrote the Constitution with exclusive use of the masculine pronoun because it never occurred to them that a woman would seek the office of the presidency. (History is almost totally devoid before 1787 of female politicians who were not royalty.) Documents are still written today with only the one pronoun, because writing both is cumbersome and repetitive.

Bottom line: the Constitution does not say "the President shall be male". Therefore there is no bar.

[laotzu]

A weak, and duboius theory.

Probably nothing more than sophistry.

[tdadams]

This is a case of someone being plausibly correct technically, but having his correct assertion be completely irrelevant and ignored.

[LonePalm]

PING!

Thoughts? It would be an interesting case to try. I think that the Supreme Court might have original jurisdiction on this one.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

[Defiant]

Utterly.

[tdadams]

Why did you bump your own thread a mere 24 seconds after posting it originally?

[cubreporter]

I thought Schumer was the JUNIOR senator. Hah,ha.