The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

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 amendment, 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.

She's kinda manly

It's going to be a moot point until Hillary actually (cough) wins a state sometime in the near future.

RM- in much legalese these days, "he" is accepted as being "he" or "she".

You are thinking too hard.  It's just an election.  Certainly someone who was not legally eligible for the office wouldn't have made it this far in the campaign.

Interesting thought RM, but unfortunately the court will use the 19th Amendment as a "hook" to hang gender equality on it all constitutional instances.  Because women are now allowed to vote they should be treated equally in all other regards - so sayeth the court.

Basically, because the 14th Amendment applies to the States and has been held to infer compliance by the states in all other regards.  The 19th refers to the states so we'll tie that in thereby dictate that the drafters of the 19th not only intended for it to apply to all aspects of the constitution and not just voting.

Make sense?

No, no it does not.  But that's basically what went down.  At this point it is not open to challenge as Congress or other potential challengers have acquiesced on the issue and more importantly it is the outcome the court wanted.  In Constitutional law, on most issues, come up with the outcome you want and then figure out how to justify it.

Hell, do you know why this is the domain of the Supreme Court anyway?  Simple:  the Supreme Court decided the Supreme Court was the ultimate authority on constitutional issues.

By your analogy, RM, none of the female representatives have legal standing to be in the house:

quote:

---

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.

---

Not sure if there is a court case, but somewhere along the line its been decided that "he" in the constitution is meant in the general sense.

Not even illegally..... ;D ;D ;D ;D

I understand the following question is unrelated in every way except it is commentary on legal opinions, but I just didn't want to start another thread.

Recently, Mark Levin has been pushing the opinion of a former college of his when he worked at the Justice Department. Calabresi is now a professor At Pritzker (Northwestern).

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/388886-the-mess-rod-rosenstein-made

In short, because Rosenstein did not lay out potential crime to investigate, the appointment of Mueller was a violation of Trump's civil rights, in that the President alone must nominate all principal officers (basically people that report either directly to the President or have an extreme amount of autonomy), which then must be approved by the Senate.

If Rosenstein had been acting more like Mueller's boss throughout this process, as opposed to just a bystander as he has been, then this would be a moot point, because Mueller would be reporting to someone superior (Rosenstein) and would therefore not be a principal officer.

At least compared to the last time this happened (Starr/Clinton) there does seem to be some differences. I could find articles that indicate Starr was appointed to investigate crimes involving Whitewater land deal. Then later had to get permission to look into the Lewinski affair stuff. Mueller does seem to be doing what he wishes. Manafort in particular is out of left field to most people. He was in charge of the FBI when they first investigated it and for whatever reason charges were never brought. I completely understand why they are now, but I think this just goes to prove the point that Mueller basically has the authority of a principal officer.

Doubt this goes anywhere of course, just curious as to your opinion.

Calabresi expands on his point in this paper https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3183324

It's just deflection.  This was hashed out before in Nixon's and Clinton's special investigations.  Just fantasy balloons someone keeps throwing up to try to get some traction of any kind.

I will agree that the actual appointment seems fine to me. I suppose the only recourse for an agent of the law "going rouge" so to speak is for their superior to fire them. Rosenstein or his boss (Trump) still has that power. While likely politically disastrous, I can't fathom a law that would prohibit that from occurring, not even obstruction as Rosenstein or Trump would likely have plenty of cause for dismissal.

What would those causes be? Specifically. And let's stay out of the Trump fantasy world, k?

Mueller has been getting approvals every step of the way.  This has been reported on extensively in the REAL media - just not the Fake Fox News Fantasy World.