NationStates Jolt Archive

Is there anything saying that men can run for president? Or is that not allowed either?

There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits women from holding public office either. Ergo, it would follow that both men and women are legally able to run for President, since sex is never mentioned as part of the qualifications for office.

Why the hell do we even need to evoke the 19th amendment here? The constitution is clear:



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 section of the constitution that details the requirements for the presidency is clear, it says no person. There is nothing in the constitution in the first place that says only a man could be president.

The argument fails because it presums something that's simply not true, that the constitution ever, at any time, prevented a woman from being president.

That's what you get when you irrationally hold on to antiquated documents that are no longer up to snuff.

Legally, a woman can't be elected president

By DICK MARPLE
For the Monitor
February 20, 2008 - 7:25 am



Most people believe not only that the 19th Amendment permitted women the right to vote but that since women serve in Congress, the courts and other offices of government, the office of president of the United States has been de-genderized.

Not true. This important legal question exists now and has not been constitutionally addressed. The language and syntax of the 19th Amendment merely removed the barriers that prevented women from voting. It did not identify women to be qualified to become elected president.

The language is clear. The 19th Amendment says: "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."

We cannot read into the amendment something that is not there. Now, had the amendment said, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote or hold public office shall not be denied," it would have accomplished what the feminists think took place.

The Susan B. Anthony Amendment (as it was then known, because the words were actually drafted by the suffragist in 1875) passed in the House by a vote of 304 to 89. The Senate then passed it, 56 to 25. The text of both the House and Senate deliberately avoided any language that would allow or permit women the right to seek the highest office in the land! It was the considered opinion of senators on both sides of the aisle that if language de-genderized the presidency, the amendment's ratification by the necessary 36 states would be in great doubt.

Today's feminists believe the election process is an evolutionary process, legalized by common practice and that someday a woman will be president. They are convinced that since women have run for the office, the male-gendered presidential office has been neutered .

Not so. They will be challenged, and a Supreme Court ruling on the language will be necessary. At the very least a constitutional amendment to change the language will be required.

I swear, the BS that some people can come up with these days. Do people actually believe what they say?

Although, I might support this as long as Mrs. Clinton is running for President :p

Or is there even anything saying that Humans in general can run for president?

Yes, considering the law does allow a non human to be a citizen.

Is there anything saying that men can run for president? Or is that not allowed either?

Or is there even anything saying that Humans in general can run for president? All hail President Swamp Thing!

http://www.victoria-woodhull.com/

Article II begins "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office..." so a strict-construction-originalist might agree that the President must be male. Gender is not actually mentioned in the clause about qualifications:

The problem is the syntax of that statement, it's specificially refering to "a" person (the president) and the office of that person. He (the president) shall hold his (the president's) office. It doesn't say the president must be male, it only refers to the fictitious and hypothetical president.

"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."

This.

Or is there even anything saying that Humans in general can run for president? All hail President Swamp Thing!

I know I am going to get pied for quoting (paraphrasing actually) this guy, but I still must: "The American dream is that anyone could one day be President; George Bush proved it." -Michael Savage.

*covers face*

Why vote for a lesser evil?

Article II begins "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office..." so a strict-construction-originalist might agree that the President must be male. Gender is not actually mentioned in the clause about qualifications:
"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."

they probably just thought it was understood that all the presidents would be dudes.

Or they assigned a male gender to the fictious example president, but were smart enough that if they intended to create a gender test, they would have included it.

There is only one section in the constitution that lists the requirements for presidency, gender is not one of them.

end of fucking story.

But just in case we feel like a sequel, we might want to scope out the whole "equal protection" thing. 14th amendment, people shall enjoy the equal protection of the laws. Which means that any part of the constitution that did restrict and deny equal protection of the laws were effectively amended by the passing fo the 14th amendment.

http://redblueamerica.com/blog/2008-02-21/are-women-allowed-be-president-united-states-1125

-sigh- I weep for this country, if that is the state of mind of our citizenry.

I went there and replied to the article with a link to this thread.

Why the hell do we even need to evoke the 19th amendment here? The constitution is clear:



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 section of the constitution that details the requirements for the presidency is clear, it says no person. There is nothing in the constitution in the first place that says only a man could be president.

The argument fails because it presums something that's simply not true, that the constitution ever, at any time, prevented a woman from being president.

Here is an argument, if you can call it that, regarding the original text of the Constitution:
And if you go back to the sections of the Constitution dealing with the office of president, they always refer to "he" or the "person" who holds the office.

Now, there's nothing that explicitly states that women are prohibited from holding the presidency -- but given the male-dominated world the Founders lived in, they probably just thought it was understood that all the presidents would be dudes.(Nice, formal language there.:rolleyes:)

Wouldn't the originalist views of Justice Antonin Scalia and his friends, then, require them to reject a Hillary Clinton presidency? Or am I wrong?

http://redblueamerica.com/blog/2008-02-21/are-women-allowed-be-president-united-states-1125

-sigh- I weep for this country, if that is the state of mind of our citizenry.

All you need is a legal definition of person that includes women.

Regardless of whether the 19th amendment granted women the right to hold office, the original constitutional language grants women the right to hold office as long as women are included in the legal definition of persons.

So, are they?

Ambiguity in old documents strikes again!

Between the Bible and the Constitution this is really getting annoying.

All you need is a legal definition of person that includes women.

Regardless of whether the 19th amendment granted women the right to hold office, the original constitutional language grants women the right to hold office as long as women are included in the legal definition of persons.

So, are they?

of course.

Ambiguity in old documents strikes again!

Between the Bible and the Constitution this is really getting annoying.

They do sure like to worship them equally.

They do sure like to worship them equally.

Whom?

Whom?

They....

Whom?

"Who", not "whom". "Whom" is an objective form. Do not use it unless you know what that means.

All you need is a legal definition of person that includes women.

Regardless of whether the 19th amendment granted women the right to hold office, the original constitutional language grants women the right to hold office as long as women are included in the legal definition of persons.

So, are they?

Nope:rolleyes:

I swear, the BS that some people can come up with these days. Do people actually believe what they say?


Someone should point out to this fool that computers, cars, telephones, supermarkets, modern medicine, and numerous other objects are not in the constitution, thus, he should not make use of any of them because it's illegal according to his world view.

I swear, the BS that some people can come up with these days. Do people actually believe what they say?

Although, I might support this as long as Mrs. Clinton is running for President :p

Mr. Marple is as you say, a grade-A idiot.

Ther is no need for the 19th Amendment to address the issue of qualification for the Presidency because gender was never a qualification.

And if gender had been a qualification, the Constitution was also amended by the 14th Amendment, which requires equal protection under the law.

You might as well argue that a black man can't be president because the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments don't specifically say a black man can be president. :headbang:

"Who", not "whom". "Whom" is an objective form. Do not use it unless you know what that means.

I wasn't sure which, so I flipped a coin.

I wouldn't have used it if I knew what it meant... Crazy reasoning you have there. :p

That's what you get when you irrationally hold on to antiquated documents that are no longer up to snuff.
On the other hand, we could have the looming danger of our rights being eliminated on the whim of any administration.

I don't recall any part of the Constitution that states the office of President as only for men. The amendment didn't make that provision because it didn't need to.

I swear, the BS that some people can come up with these days. Do people actually believe what they say?

Although, I might support this as long as Mrs. Clinton is running for President :p

He's a triple-decker dipshit. As has already been pointed out, there's no need for the Nineteenth AMendment to give women the right to run for political office, because they already had it. :)

Yes, considering the law does allow a non human to be a citizen.Someone plays Shadowrun? =P

Yes, considering the law does allow a non human to be a citizen.
Wrong.
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
Whatever idiot said Women can't (Or shouldn't) be president has utter lack of intelligence. Gender has nothing to do with the ability to lead a country. You want proof?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_I_of_England
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_of_the_United_Kingdom

Someone plays Shadowrun? =P

I always liked being a troll mage, myself.

I always liked being a troll mage, myself.

Shadowrun always struck me as a rather sad rip=off/mangling of cyberpunk personally (though admittedly I've had fun every time I've played it.)

Yes, considering the law does allow a non human to be a citizen.

Ah, but a non-human is not a person, and therefore is excluded.

Technicalities. Gotta love 'em.

Just as to proof the pudding as it were, I direct said idiots who actually believe this idea to reflect upon this as well:

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. -Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2, US Constitution

This has the exact same Person and He as the one for the qualifications needed to be president; however, Ms. Jeannette Rankin had no problems assuming her seat in the US House of Representatives on April 2, 1917, three years before the 19th Amendment was ratified.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeannette_Rankin

Seems like the question was already settled.

Same debate happened in Canada around 80 years ago. It eventually got to the British Privy Council, who ruled in favour of the woman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persons_Case
Kind of sad someone's trying to pull this stunt in this day and age...