A very well written and researched article. It is a bit long, but try to read it with an open mind
http://www.jonchristianryter.com/2007/070914.html
2007-09-19 03:32:45 · 5 answers · asked by Mark A 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
To Wiggensray. Personally I agree with you, but in the Constitution in the case of defining members of congress, the Founders go to great lengths to keep it gender neutral, whereas in the description on the POTUS, it ONLY has masculine references. Not quite a subtle difference, but a well defined one.
2007-09-19 03:58:59 · update #1
How about this? When Bill Clinton ran for President, he said that we were getting 'two for one', and that Hillary would have an equal share of decision making when he was in office.
That means she has already SERVED two terms and is therefore no longer eligible for a third term!
2007-09-19 05:10:44 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I find the part about Bill Clinton "secretly" trying to find out if he could run again to be laughable. The constitution is clear as day about the issue - it doesn't take a supreme court justice to figure that one out.
Pretty weak argument - it all hinges on having a strict interpretation of what the use of "he" means. It's commonly accepted that "he" in the context of a legal document does not necessarily exclude women. Obviously, the founders probably didn't envision a woman as President (a woman seeking such an office would have been non-existent in the culture of the country at the time) - but they probably didn't envision a Catholic President either, and would be perplexed that black Americans would be able to run. I have great admiration for the wisdom of the founding fathers, they were smart enough to build a system of government that can adapt to the changing needs and insights of the people. Some may want us to try to live in an 18th century America - but that's not the country the founders set up.
Luckily we live a country now where women can seek the same opportunities as men (not perfect, but certainly an improvement over the 18th century)
2007-09-19 10:50:31 · answer #2 · answered by wigginsray 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
That is the most sexist article that I have ever read. You can't really think anyone will take that BS seriously, do you?
2007-09-19 13:11:11 · answer #3 · answered by The Wiz 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I read some of it. Its interesting, but i still didnt read ANY amendement saying women cant run.
2007-09-19 10:40:21 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
What ray said.
2007-09-19 10:52:39 · answer #5 · answered by DeAnna 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋