PDA

View Full Version : Homework for the Legal Beagles


tiptap
02-25-2008, 08:19 AM
Back to reality. If Hillary Clinton wins the primary and election, we will have a constitutional crisis because she is not eligible to be President. Problem? She's a woman. Article II, Section 1 of the constitution starts:

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, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows: ..."

Notice the word "He." Nothing about "He or she." But what about the 19th amendmnent, you ask? It reads in full:

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. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Not a word about holding public office. Just voting. Thus the "He" in Article II, Section 1 is still operative. It hasn't been overridden. But Hillary could pull a fast one. She could choose Bill as her running mate, then resign immediately after being inaugurated. Wouldn't this run afoul of the the 22nd amendment? Nope. It starts out like this:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

So Bill can't be elected again, but nothing stops him from succeeding to the office in the event of the President's resignation, impeachment, incapacitation, or death. Some people might not like that, so they can vote for McCain to avoid these nasty constitutional issues. Well not exactly. McCain wasn't born in the United States. He's a Zonian.

What about Obama? He was born in Hawaii. When did it become a state, now? Ah. 1959. When was Obama born? 1961. So it was part of the United States when he was born, but not by much. It would have been kind of messy to have three candidates for President, none of whom was actually eligible for the job. SCOTUS would have had to work overtime to pick a President. Chances are Justice Scalia would have asked: "What was the original intent of the founders (Scalia is an Originalist). The intent was clearly that the President should be a propertied white male. Slaves counted for 3/5 of a person (Article 1, Section 2, paragraph 3) and while women counted for purposes of apportioning seats in the House, they couldn't vote or hold office.

The problem with things written in the 18th century is that stuff changes. Suppose that in 200 years robots are much smarter than people (probably not that hard, actually). Could a robot be elected President? Not what James Madison and friends had in mind, though.

Thanks to The Daily Irrelevant for the tip.



http://electoral-vote.com/

Amnorix
02-25-2008, 08:22 AM
Correct. By implication, women are excluded under standard rules of contractual interpretation. Very, very interesting.

tiptap
02-25-2008, 08:28 AM
Suddenly the Equal Rights Amendment is not just an empty unnecessary addition to the Constitution.

Mr. Kotter
02-25-2008, 08:38 AM
Suddenly the Equal Rights Amendment is not just an empty unnecessary addition to the Constitution.

Perhaps we are more ready today for women in combat, unisex public bathrooms, Constitutionally sanctioned gay marriages and adoptions, and the end to preferential laws favoring women in child custody and alimony suits, than we were in 1970. However, I don't think we are quite there....yet anyway.

As for the Constitutional prohibition against selecting a woman to be President....very interesting. Heh. ROFL

BucEyedPea
02-25-2008, 09:22 AM
The problem with things written in the 18th century is that stuff changes. Suppose that in 200 years robots are much smarter than people (probably not that hard, actually). Could a robot be elected President? Not what James Madison and friends had in mind, though.

That's what the Amendment process is designed to deal with. Don't like it, doesn't fit or work for the times...amend it.

As for "stuff changin'" be careful what "stuff" you mean as well... because that can be way to reduce your freedom too. So the basics of structuring power should remain the same because how people like to seize power for their own agendas never changes. Human nature does not change....the incidentals do. It takes foresight to see this. Govt should indeed grow as a society gets more complex but it should grow proportionately so that the balance center holds...that is a balance of powers so liberty is ensured.

banyon
02-25-2008, 09:30 AM
That's what the Amendment process is designed to deal with. Don't like it, doesn't fit or work for the times...amend it.

As for "stuff changin'" be careful what "stuff" you mean as well... because that can be way to reduce your freedom too. So the basics of structuring power should remain the same because how people like to seize power for their own agendas never changes. Human nature does not change....the incidentals do. It takes foresight to see this. Govt should indeed grow as a society gets more complex but it should grow proportionately so that the balance center holds...that is a balance of powers so liberty is ensured.


Yep, 28th amendment Let's get 3/4 of the states to "change he to they".
Unfortunately we'd probably have 4000 amendments and need interpretation of those too. It would serve to undercut the integrity and simplicity of the document.

also see my sig for one of the founding authors who disagrees (no surprise to you i'm sure).

Mr. Kotter
02-25-2008, 09:30 AM
That's what the Amendment process is designed to deal with. Don't like it, doesn't fit or work for the times...amend it.

As for "stuff changin'" be careful what "stuff" you mean as well... because that can be way to reduce your freedom too. So the basics of structuring power should remain the same because how people like to seize power for their own agendas never changes. Human nature does not change....the incidentals do. It takes foresight to see this. Govt should indeed grow as a society gets more complex but it should grow proportionately so that the balance center holds...that is a balance of powers so liberty is ensured.

Nice phrase, this "seize power for their own agenda"....a nice euphemism for contemptuously disregarding the will of the people, I'd say.

After all, in our republic we are empowered to remove politicians who....don't comport with our wishes, correct? :shrug:

That we, in your opinion apparently, don't wisely choose to do that...is really a problem of our own making isn't it? Or is it rather that, a majority of Americans don't share the antiquated Ron Paul (and your) notion of "liberty."

A while back I decided that, whenever I see you use the word "liberty" I decided that I would, in my own mind, substitute "anarchy"....that's made reading your stuff much easier. ;)

pikesome
02-25-2008, 09:37 AM
I'm not sure your could find a SC justice that would accept the use of a male pronoun as excluding females from office. Even without the 19th amendment which clearly demonstrates intent even if it doesn't spell it out clearly (and the fact that the people who write these things need more practice).

And I thought that crap about McCain was settled.

Through birth abroad to two United States citizens

See also: jus sanguinis

In most cases, one is a U.S. citizen if both of the following are true:

1. Both parents were U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth
2. At least one parent lived in the United States prior to the child's birth.

A person's record of birth abroad, if registered with a U.S. consulate or embassy, is proof of his or her citizenship. He or she may also apply for a passport or a Certificate of Citizenship to have his or her citizenship recognized.

pikesome
02-25-2008, 09:46 AM
In addition on the McCain issue, he was born on Coco Solo Air Base. Unless I'm mistaken US military bases are considered US soil regardless of their location. Making this whole "McCain isn't a US citizen" crap on the same level as the Obama is an AQ sleeper nonsense.

Taco John
02-25-2008, 10:20 AM
We are ignoring The Constitution on much bigger issues than this.

pikesome
02-25-2008, 10:26 AM
We are ignoring The Constitution on much bigger issues than this.

Welcome to the 20th century's version of the Consitution:
http://animalrescue.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/seal_photo.jpg

BucEyedPea
02-25-2008, 11:37 AM
Nice phrase, this "seize power for their own agenda"....a nice euphemism for contemptuously disregarding the will of the people, I'd say.

After all, in our republic we are empowered to remove politicians who....don't comport with our wishes, correct? :shrug:

That we, in your opinion apparently, don't wisely choose to do that...is really a problem of our own making isn't it? Or is it rather that, a majority of Americans don't share the antiquated Ron Paul (and your) notion of "liberty."

A while back I decided that, whenever I see you use the word "liberty" I decided that I would, in my own mind, substitute "anarchy"....that's made reading your stuff much easier. ;)

Hmmm? Last time I posted similarly you agreed with it. I could probably find it too if I wanted to bother.

Now you sound like Irish who called me an anarchist. I told him that was just an indication that he was further to the left than he claimed himself to be which was as a moderate. I am hardly an anarchist. You must be further to the left they you place yourself if you think this. Because it's usually the hard left that places me there. So this would make you a leftist.

I am for small government not NO govt and not for BIG govt. I am for more govt than a full libertarian. I am for the original center, with a few exceptions as a lump sum total. That's the balance the Founders struck what would be too much or too little govt.

In the era of big govt that's all been tossed out. Wilson was on of those who began this idea that our Constitution was irrelevant and outdated replacing it with a living one. So he expanded presidential powers and got more involved in legislation. The Constitution may have some unclear areas but it wasn't written on rubber either. And yes, it was also meant to check the "will of the majority" what is sometimes deemed the "tryanny of the majority" instead of "binding men down" by the "chains of the Constitution" to protect inalienable rights. (natural rights) It also delivers poor results too. Almost all our problems today can be traced to not following the Constitution.

Here's an illustration of how I see it and how terms are relative.

BucEyedPea
02-25-2008, 11:46 AM
In addition on the McCain issue, he was born on Coco Solo Air Base. Unless I'm mistaken US military bases are considered US soil regardless of their location. Making this whole "McCain isn't a US citizen" crap on the same level as the Obama is an AQ sleeper nonsense.

Actually the Constitution only uses the term "natural-born" citizen. (Article II.1.4). It's the US Code that says what that will be.

As far as I know there's only a few notes from the CC as what "natural-born citizen" would be as it was not debated extensively.

The article also says "or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution" because there were persons of foreign birth who created the US who would have been ineligible for office if this was not inserted: Robert Morris, Alexander Hamilton, James McHenry, James Wilson, William Paterson, Pierce Butler.

Mr. Kotter
02-25-2008, 11:49 AM
BEP, I do agree philosophically (to a point) with you. I agree, our government has strayed from the founder's intent on more than one front. However, if Americans didn't accept it....didn't want it...we would not have permitted it.

The "Living Constitution" is a fact of modern American life, both for good and bad....and whether we like it or not. Until Americans across the country change their minds, and start voting Ron Paul clones into office...until they become a majority voice in Congress and state legislatures....we are stuck with it. And it won't change anytime soon that I can see.

So those of us who are varying degrees of "conservative" are left with two choices: either we make ourselves relevant, by playing within the rules of the game as it is now played....and work to change whatever we can (a return to a real sense of federalism would be a wise first step, IMO.) Or we can marginalize ourselves and choose to lament our government's drift from original intent of the founding fathers and wringe our hands over how...."it used to be so much better in the olden days!"

You may not like it, but the "informal amendment" process (which is how the Constitution has become a "living document") has become an entrenched part of the Constitution....the SC opened the door to that in the early 1800s, Congress agreed, Presidents stepped aside....and now they each take advantage of the latitude that grants them. Until American voters elect politicians who decide to reverse that, it's going to continue to be the way of the world....like it or not.

tiptap
02-25-2008, 12:38 PM
I look at BEP chart and can see it is basically true but what is missing is the rise of rights for abstract corporations and the holdings that those institutions weld. If you are going to ask for a strict interpretation than the rise of corporations through the 20th Century has to be seen as also bad. I am ok with a libertarian notion for governments if the corporations are also re constituted to reflect this.