Women cannot be elected to US Presidency

[paladin]

http://www.jonchristianryter.com/2004/061304.htm

This guys is really gasping at straws!

[Xenophobe3691]

Wow. What a closet sexist! Oh wait...he isn't that in the closet, is he? I say we Slashdot his ass, make sure his bills go through the fucking roof. Little shit...

[Temjin]

Call me dense, but how is this guy a sexist? While reading through the article, all he does is state an intersesting and overlooked fact: All the 19th amendment does is give women a right to vote. While the rest of the constitution refers to the president as male. And he also mentions that no one pays attention to that distinction any more.

No where in the article does he state that he thinks that women should be denied office. He sounded pretty unbiased to me.

[CaptainChewbacca]

The argument does have merit, specifically wherein the Presidency and powers thereof are referred to with masculine pronouns and congressmen and senators are consistently referred to with gender-neutral nouns.

[Bugsby]

Call me dense, but how is this guy a sexist? While reading through the article, all he does is state an intersesting and overlooked fact: All the 19th amendment does is give women a right to vote. While the rest of the constitution refers to the president as male. And he also mentions that no one pays attention to that distinction any more.

No where in the article does he state that he thinks that women should be denied office. He sounded pretty unbiased to me.

He is sexist. He makes his major point by sighting a technicality resulting from an era when PC was out. He says the 25th Ammendment only allows women to vote. But the SPIRIT of that ammendment is to allow women an equal share in politics.

He cannot profess ignorance of the concept of the spirit of the ammendment. Look at the beginning of the article. It talks about how Clinton was unable to run for a third term in 2004 because the spirit of the 25th ammendment prevents him from serving a third term, consecutive or not.

Pure "women are inferior" sexism is not in vogue, but constructing logical (incorrect) arguments to try and support sexism is still rampant. This is what he is attempting. Fight back! Slashdot works.

[Wicked Pilot]

Wow. What a closet sexist! Oh wait...he isn't that in the closet, is he? I say we Slashdot his ass, make sure his bills go through the fucking roof. Little shit...

Could you please point to the sentence where he stated that women should not hold office. I couldn't seem to find it.

As to whether or not his conclusions about the constitutionality of female presidents are right or wrong, I honestly don't know. I'll wait for more knowledgable people like RI to weight in on the matter.

[Temjin]

He is sexist. He makes his major point by sighting a technicality resulting from an era when PC was out. He says the 25th Ammendment only allows women to vote. But the SPIRIT of that ammendment is to allow women an equal share in politics.

He cannot profess ignorance of the concept of the spirit of the ammendment. Look at the beginning of the article. It talks about how Clinton was unable to run for a third term in 2004 because the spirit of the 25th ammendment prevents him from serving a third term, consecutive or not.

Pure "women are inferior" sexism is not in vogue, but constructing logical (incorrect) arguments to try and support sexism is still rampant. This is what he is attempting. Fight back! Slashdot works.

All he did in that in that article is point out that technicality. No where does he state that women should not be allowed the right to vote. It read to me like he was just pointing out an interesting fact.

Just because he is writing about it does not mean he is a sexist.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Back to topic, please? CAN women run for President?

[Bugsby]

Yes. A woman can register to run.... just look at Carol Mosely Braun (I know that is spelled wrong). If it looks like that woman might actually win, an opponenet might take the technicality to the supreme court. And there is NO WAY the court would rule against a woman in that situation, especially with the generally loose interpretations of the constitution that have predominated for the last several years. And once the supreme court rules in the favor of the woman and the precedent is set, then it will be as good as law.

So, yes, a woman can be president.

[Gil Hamilton]

Back to topic, please? CAN women run for President?

Sure, they can run as much as they want. But the question heere is whether they can hold office. As far as I'm concerned, I don't see why not. However, I'm sure it will be an issue the moment the Democrats decide to run a strong female candidate and the Republicans decide to see if they can cheapshot. In the end, the Supreme Court may have to rule on it but I'm sure they will rule that women can serve.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Grammatically, he and his are proper when the gender is unknown. We have no gender neutral personal pronouns

[Temjin]

However, I'm sure it will be an issue the moment the Democrats decide to run a strong female candidate and the Republicans decide to see if they can cheapshot. In the end, the Supreme Court may have to rule on it but I'm sure they will rule that women can serve.

Can you say "Political Suicide"?

[Gil Hamilton]

Can you say "Political Suicide"?

I know how petty both sides of the aisle are and that conservatives would grab on this in a New York minute if they thought they could stop of female Democratic candidate from being elected, all the more because the core of their constituants would support them on it.

[phongn]

Grammatically, he and his are proper when the gender is unknown. We have no gender neutral personal pronouns

Indeed.

It is only recently that "his and her" or "he and she" has come into general usage, the "proper" way is to say "he" or "his"

[Elfdart]

The most important part of the Constitution is the beginning: "We the people"...

While the various articles of the document should be adhered to, "We the People" have the final say. If the people tolerate it, that's the way it will be.

For example, the Constitution states that if both the presidential and vice-presidential candidates on the ticket are from the same state, that state's electoral votes do not count for that ticket. Both Bush and Cheney were Texas residents in 2000, yet nobody challenged where Texas' electoral votes went. Since the DC courts and Congress were in the hands of the GOP, such a challenge was pointless anyway. The point is that it's highly unlikely that an election would be overturned on such a technicality.

I'd like to see the SCOTUS try to scuttle the election of a female president-elect. Even the five shysters on the bench who hijacked the last election would have a hard time pulling that one off.

[CaptainChewbacca]

The most important part of the Constitution is the beginning: "We the people"...

While the various articles of the document should be adhered to, "We the People" have the final say. If the people tolerate it, that's the way it will be.

For example, the Constitution states that if both the presidential and vice-presidential candidates on the ticket are from the same state, that state's electoral votes do not count for that ticket. Both Bush and Cheney were Texas residents in 2000, yet nobody challenged where Texas' electoral votes went. Since the DC courts and Congress were in the hands of the GOP, such a challenge was pointless anyway. The point is that it's highly unlikely that an election would be overturned on such a technicality.

Really? Why didn't Gore try and use that to win the election? If Bush takes Florida but loses Texas, Gore would have won it.

[Xenophobe3691]

The most important part of the Constitution is the beginning: "We the people"...

While the various articles of the document should be adhered to, "We the People" have the final say. If the people tolerate it, that's the way it will be.

For example, the Constitution states that if both the presidential and vice-presidential candidates on the ticket are from the same state, that state's electoral votes do not count for that ticket. Both Bush and Cheney were Texas residents in 2000, yet nobody challenged where Texas' electoral votes went. Since the DC courts and Congress were in the hands of the GOP, such a challenge was pointless anyway. The point is that it's highly unlikely that an election would be overturned on such a technicality.

Really? Why didn't Gore try and use that to win the election? If Bush takes Florida but loses Texas, Gore would have won it.

Because Texas would've raised hell...

[CaptainChewbacca]

P.S. where does it say that?

[EmperorMing]

After reading that article I don't see how he could be sexist, since I saw at the end of it a way to make a change that would allow a woman to be a president as per this article.

[RedImperator]

What a load of shit. His entire argument is based on his ignorance of English grammar--as Alyrium correctly stated, the singular neuter personal pronoun in English is "he". He appeals to the authority of unnamed "Constitutional scholars". He abuses Corry and Abraham's argument about "unwritten" qualifications, and never actually proves being male is one of the unwritten qualifications anyway. He states his assumptions as fact. His whole case boils down to, "Even though the Framers took the time to explicitly state three disqualifications for becoming President, my semantics whoring proves there are really four, and some constitutional scholars who I won't bother naming agree with me."

And even as a semantics argument, his fails. He cites the difference in the language of Article I (gender neutral) to Article II (supposedly masculine) as proof the Constitution specifies a male President, only the pronouns are masculine. Every time the Framers used a noun to refer to a prospective office holder, be he (neutral "he", not masculine) Senator, Congressman, or PRESIDENT, they used "Person" or "Persons".

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.

The word "man" never appears in the Constitution. At all.

This guy is a complete idiot.

[Bugsby]

Thank you, Imperator! Like I tried to say before, the very fact that he would write this on such scanty evidence is proof that he is sexist. Of course he's not going to come right out and say "I believe women are inferior and should never be president." But even presenting this as an option when any informed would see that it is not speaks of either a passive sexism or a crippling idiocy.

[Darth Yoshi]

Back to topic, please? CAN women run for President?

Didn't Bob Dole's wife try for the presidencyback in 2000?

[CrimsonRaine]

Back to topic, please? CAN women run for President?

Is there anything stopping her that would stop a man? To my knowledge, there are no amendments that prevent a woman from campaigning and running, even if most of the consitution is written with masculine pronouns (and perhaps intent).

Besides we have female statesmen, governors (don't we?) and senators. I can't see how rising to the final step could ever be argued without sexist intent.

And I'd really, really hate to say this, but I was once listening to a Feminist speech that said that white men have been running this country since its foundation. Perhaps it's time for another type of person in office. This does not just include women, but African American men and so on.

I tend to think that sometimes, we're so set in our ways that it's difficult to look outside the box. But this, by no means, means everyone or even anyone on this boards.

'Raine

[CrimsonRaine]

<snip>

Well-spoken. Better than I could have ever written. They were my thoughts exactly, brother.

'Raine

[Wicked Pilot]

The word "man" never appears in the Constitution. At all.

This guy is a complete idiot.

Sweet.