Conservative weirdo decides he has evidence women can't be President

[YellowRubberDuckie]

Apparently in the constitution, the founding fathers stipulated what gender someone had to be to become President. But this idiot's argument that there are specifics, consists of the words HE and HIS. <snip>
Moreover, the Founding Fathers specifically wrote into the Constitution a male-gendered office called President. Article II, Section 1 begins: "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected as follows..." You really do not have to read further to realize the role of President of the United States is gender-specific. Note the qualifications for the office of Congressman found in Article I, Section 1: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States...No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained the age of 25 years, and been 7 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..." There is no gender specification in the description of a Congressman. Nor is there any in the qualifications for Senator found in Article I, Section 2: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State chosen by the legislature thereof...No person shall be a Senator who shall have attained the age of 30 years, and been 9 years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen." Only one time, in one sentence, in Article I are the members of the House and/or Senate collectively referred to in male gender, and that is in Section 6, paragraph 2. In that instance, the usage is basically generic since there is no individual gender specific reference made for an individual person. In this single instance, the Constitution is clarifying that Congressmen and Senators may not serve a dual role in the Executive Branch of government.
<end snip>
There's a nice history of the women who have ran for president but weren't allowed because of this argument. Most of the argument is just to bash Hillary and Bill. But it's just interesting anyone is really this dumb. Thought you guys would enjoy it.
Duckie

[freetobegay]

1. Thanks for sharing.

It's amazing what some people try to make out of something.

[sam sarrha]

2. Why do i think he also interperates the Bible like that also..hummm...

[Radical Activist]

4. Why do I think he beleives the Bible and Constitution

have the same level and authority before god. Except for a few pesky amendments like that 14th one.

[CO Liberal]

3. How Stupid

Any gender-specific terms in the Constitution became null and void when women won the right to vote in 1920.

[many a good man]

5. And fetuses can't be president, either!

Ha! It appears you have to be born first...

[opihimoimoi]

7. Itr was only about 90 years ago women got the right to VOTE

About 100 tears ago the RC Church decided women had SOULS.



damn,

[ElectroPrincess]

9. Yes, and many still refuse pet's souls

Gosh, my daughter in Catholic school got into a tiff. Many folks still teach the strict Catholic tenet that only humans have souls ... excluding God's other beautiful creatures.

My 10 year old daughter stood up in class and said to the teacher, "I don't care what you say my doggie has a soul!" When she came home she was upset. It was a good opportunity to teach her the obvious: "Keep on believing that because many other Catholics do feel just the same way as you." (our precious pets also have souls.

If you wish to be strict, if the Pope didn't say it under a divine authority (very rarely does he invoke this), then it's subject to interpretation. My point: All religions/government institutions have their right wing conservative leaders who try to shove beliefs down the throats of the average parishioner/citizen. It's sad that many of us Catholics have to believe and/or tolerate (believe otherwise in silence) the delusions of these old mean spirited men.

[elfwitch]

14. That is why my mother was agnostic/atheist

She refused to believe in a God that wouldn't allow her to be in heaven with her pets.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

13. Damn....

They had to decide that?! Jesus Christ.
Duckie

[eyesroll]

6. Here's a link to the giant leaps of logic:

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

Anyone have access to an OED? I bet "he" and "him" have been used generically for centuries, so, at best, this idiot could perhaps make the claim that we really don't know what the Founding Fathers intended.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:
http://www.bartleby.com/61/75/H0097500.html

Traditionally the pronouns he, him, and his have been used as generic or gender-neutral singular pronouns, as in A novelist should write about what he knows best and No one seems to take any pride in his work anymore. Since the early 20th century, however, this usage has come under increasing criticism for reflecting and perpetuating gender stereotyping.
<...>
But in fact the English masculine form is an odd choice when it refers to a female member of such a group. There is something plainly disconcerting about sentences such as Each of the stars of As Good As It Gets won an Academy Award for his performance. In this case, the use of his forces the reader to envision a single male who stands as the representative member of the group, a picture that is at odds with the image that comes to mind when we picture the stars of As Good As It Gets. Thus he is not really a gender-neutral pronoun; rather, it refers to a male who is to be taken as the representative member of the group referred to by its antecedent. The traditional usage, then, is not simply a grammatical convention; it also suggests a particular pattern of thought.

So, I think, one could argue that the Founding Fathers may have assumed their leader would be male, based on their world view (female monarchs are a red herring -- queens were a matter of lack of male heirs; an older daughter will get passed up for a younger son in the line to the throne in most monarchies, past and present), but the use of the masculine pronoun doesn't actually imply a requirement that the leader would be male.

[kskiska]

8. I remember someone telling me way back in 1960 or so

that JFK really couldn't be sworn in as president because he was Catholic and a president has to take his oath of office on a Protestant Bible. I had to wonder, even back then, whether anyone had told JFK.

[havocmom]

10. would like to point out to the sexist pig, that every terrible president

we have had, every damned one of those bad apples, has been male. Maybe we should consider enlarging the pool from which we choose?
:evilgrin: for my grandma, who is no longer here to speak

[pagerbear]

11. It's obvious to me!

Why do you hate America?

[skippysmom]

12. But we didn't need an ERA

right?

/sarcasm

I was always told that "he" could be a gender neutral pronoun -- it is in other languages. The Constitution was obviously written before s/he came into vogue.