Clutching At Straws...

[desertvixen]

I lurk at Feministing a lot, but I had to pass this gem along:

http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080220/OPINION/802200400/1028/OPINION02

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.

That would be because what HE thinks needed to happen is incorrect. 

Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution states the requirements for becoming 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”

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.

Clutching at straws, just a little bit here?  I think so. 

I must confess, I just do not understand why there is such FEAR of a female president.  I can understand not wanting to vote for Hillary, or not wanting to vote for a particular candidate, but I do NOT understand this.

DV

Comments

[napoleonofnerds.livejournal.com]

I think he's basing the argument more on the fact that throughout the Constitution the pronouns for the President are male: "He shall hold office" "He shall appoint" and so on. It's a flimsier argument than my argument that Ohio isn't a state, which is saying something.

[the-blue-fenix.livejournal.com]

But I thought the term "he" was inclusive of both male and female. That's what they say when they don't want to go to the trouble of including females, anyway.

Re the emotional weight of the issue -- in a word, girl cooties. One of the most powerful forces on earth, apparently.

[napoleonofnerds.livejournal.com]

That's the traditional interpretation.

[desert-vixen.livejournal.com]

in a word, girl cooties.

Shouldn't they grow out of this eventually?

Oh wait, I was trying to be rational.

DV

[desert-vixen.livejournal.com]

He's pretty clear about being stuck on the 19th Amendment issue, without mentioning the use of the male pronoun.

As a Feministing commenter mentioned, he could try the same BS argument using the 15th Amendment and Obama.

It would still be BS.

out of curiosity, what's the Ohio argument?

DV

[napoleonofnerds.livejournal.com]

There are some formulaic errors in the admission of Ohio to the union. They were retroactively settled in 1953 by Congress, but Congress cannot pass an ex post facto law - that is, a law which applies before it is ratified. As a result, Ohio never legally became a state. This has many problems associated with it, including rendering 7 separate presidencies illegal.

[desert-vixen.livejournal.com]

I'm good with the idea of Ohio not being a state... but that's because I am a fan of the U of Michigan.

Interesting idea, though.

DV

[cinchntouch.livejournal.com]

Women can vote?! :-0

[desert-vixen.livejournal.com]

Yes, and we can even put our shoes on to do so!

DV

[soldiergrrrl.livejournal.com]

I dislike Clinton for a lot reasons, but not because of her gender.

This is a thin argument against a female prez, but this type of guy seems like he'd have a problem with *any* female in a position of power.

[desert-vixen.livejournal.com]

Don't even get me started on the whole "women will vote for Hillary because she has a vagina" BS. We never accuse men of voting for their candidate because HE has a penis.

DV

[soldiergrrrl.livejournal.com]

Well, it's not like they'd be able to avoid voting for someone because they have a penis.

At least, not often in the presidential race.

[stoutfellow.livejournal.com]

Notice, by the way, that Article 2, Section 1 specifically uses the (non-gendered) word "person".

[desert-vixen.livejournal.com]

Which is why I (and several posters at Feministing) brought it up. Despite the amusement factor of his "ha, ha silly feminists, you weren't paying attention and you LOSE" argument, that was the first thing I thought of.

It's an interesting choice of words, however, in that they use "men" and "he" other places where it was most likely intended to refer only to men.

DV

[stoutfellow.livejournal.com]

Sorry. Pointing out the obvious is an occupational hazard for a teacher.

Me, Neither

[carbonelle.livejournal.com]

But then, I had Maggie Thatcher's portrait on my bedroom wall (cut from the cover of Time Magazine) when I was a teenager.

Of course, there are loads of people who believe that the word "Person" does not neccessarily include women humans. But they can go pound sand.

Re: Me, Neither

[desert-vixen.livejournal.com]

On this issue, we are in agreement.

DV