Hoo boy, is this guy worried. Pretty soon women’ll want equal pay for equal work, too.
This is the kind of wingnut who thinks paying income taxes is voluntary.
And that article is just another reason why I don’t read my local paper (Concord Monitor).
A woman as president? Preposterous! Next thing ya know, we’ll be voting for sheep!
I can’t around the fact that this guy’s name sounds like penile carpal tunnel syndrome. Which I imagine is what you get when you sit at a keyboard and jerk off all day.
My favourite part is when he identifies people seeking suffrage for women as “the feminists”. Man, nothing like syntax to let you know where a person is coming from.
Regardless of whether his opinions hold water, the guy is making a legal point here. I don’t see him making a sexist comment or demand. He’s stating an opinion that the 19th amendment does not give women the right to hold the office of the President.
I have no clue if his argument holds water or not. Even so, why not address his arguments with rational, analytic commentary instead of a slew of ad-hominem attacks?
People who respond to discussions by personally attacking the author suggest that they have nothing intelligent to say. Having met some of the MHB folks, I know that this isn’t true. We have here an opportunity to learn something about the 19th amendment, and to discuss the history and intent of the women’s rights movement. Let’s not sully it by acting like a right wing, whacko talk show host.
“I have no clue if his argument holds water or not. Even so, why not address his arguments with rational, analytic commentary instead of a slew of ad-hominem attacks?”
a) it doesn’t hold water.
b) he’s a poopie-head.
c) rational discourse works best with someone who is himself rational. if this guy isn’t purposefully being satirical, he is, at the very least, one shit short of a very large shit stack.
Take it from a lawyer, this legal argument will go nowhere, because the Nintheenth Amendment is irrelevent. Though male pronouns are used in the Constitution when talking about the Presidency, the qualifications are this:
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Women were eligible to be President before they could vote.
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5. No mention of the gender of the president. So this guy can go fuck himself. Hard. Ta da! Rational discourse.
also: Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution makes no mention of the President’s gender.
His argument holds zero water, and it would get nowhere if anyone actually tried to argue it.
The Constitution states: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Though the Constitution uses male pronouns elsewhere in talking about the President, the eligibilty requirements are clearly gender-neutral.
The Nineteenth Amendment is totally irrelevent.
this is so awesome.
Although we all agree it is utterly ludicrous “NOT” to think that women are eligible to be President, from a law perspective, that understanding is a collective sociological “assumption”. It appears this article’s focus is not about that issue. Instead, from a legal perspective, the article really exposes a problem that emerges from a valid legal principle and subsequent debate that rages within that principle.
That debate is NOT about whether women can vote or hold any office. It is about a principle the law community defines and debates as “strict construction of the law”. This fellow does seem to really go way far beyond the norms in his perception on strict construction. But he brings up a valid “legal” issue that should be of concern to progressive people. As he says, “the language should be changed.”
In Constitutional and Contract Law, there is an axiom. “If it is not written, it does not exist.”
The law does not recognize sociological assumptions. That was why we pursued an Equal Rights Amendment because there is “NO” language that, express and specifically, declares that the Constitution is gender neutral. The acknowledged issue of “strict construction” was a critical causality, from a legal standpoint, why the ERA was conceived.
Please note, the progressive legal community also recognizes the principle of strict construction. It is not a “right wing” idea. This is why we do need specific and well written laws that are fully inclusive to all. (Kicking us T-people out of the recent hate crimes legislation is an excellent example of leaving us in the wilderness because of strict construction. We can be killed and it is not a hate crime.)
Hence, his comments highlight the fact that gender is “not” protected. (A big Constitutional problem.)
The reference to 19th Century Law also is indicative of the legal nature of his commentary. The USA (and UK) use Precedent Law. Other countries use “Code Law”. France is an example of a Code Law system. In precedent law, what has been ruled in the past is valid precedent until a new ruling or a law changes the legal environment. It is a more gradual, but messier system, intended to protect human rights over extended periods of time via mass collective consent.
Code Law can manifest faster and more radical change. But it has a tendency to reflect elite control of governance. In the wrong hands, it is a more dangerous system for human rights. The Weimar Republic (Germany 1919-1933) used Code Law. Hitler took over in ’33 and within six months he was able to “legally” transform Germany into a totalitarian state by changing the legal code. With precedent law, this is almost impossible to do.
Best to all,
Catrina: I assume that you’re an attorney?
No, I’m not. I just play one on TV…. Only joking….
In another life within this life, I had responsibility for legal affairs as a GM of an International Fortune 100 Company subsidiary/ branch in the States. It was extremely interesting work but usually a very expensive, big headache.
Caprice is an attorney. She just taught me something interesting for political – legal junkies like me. The 19th Amendment causality manifested from an argument on Federalism because, up until that time, the States had the right to determine who could vote! Interesting! Thanks Caprice!!!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 130 other subscribers