Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Change, Hope, Blah, Blah

I just came back from seeing Chelsea Clinton at Cyclone Anaya's in Houston. She was great--very poised, attentive, and very direct and specific in her answers to questions. Better than that, I got to talk to her myself and ask her some questions. She worked the room like a master, taking questions and soliciting suggestions for the campaign.

When I told a nameless person that I was off to see Chelsea, she replied, "Thank God somebody is still in support of Hillary!" (Dear interested reader, just FYI, I am actually still undecided.) "After all this talk of hope and change. I mean, what is hope anyway?! Is this disenchanted? Maybe. Is it a valid point? Definately.

Along these lines, in reference to Obama-rama, the friend who took me to the event exclaimed, "Change, change, change! What I want to know is: change what, by how much, and by when? Ha! Yes, for those of you who are wondering, this is the quote of an academic.

Overall it was a great night. I got some good ritas. And then I came across
this. Is this a joke? I'm still not sure. Thoughts?

Labels: ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's written somewhere? that you cannot discriminate because of sex (gender), so that would allow a female president. right?

1:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

this is the text of the constitution:
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.

I think that commenter is full of it. The constitution doesn't even use gender specific could have said "no man," and even if it did, we might have a problem with the 14th amendment.

The only people who would bring this up would also be claiming that the IRS doesn't exist.

8:07 AM  
Blogger Patrick said...

I don't think it's a joke. I *do* think it reaches an incomplete conclusion.

The editorialist correctly notices that there's nothing in the federal constitution authorizing women to hold public office or, specifically, the presidency. He misses the mark, however, because there's no specific prohibition to women holding office, either. Being a good textualist, he's suggesting that one may only do what the constitution authorizes. Which surprises me, based on his hometown in "Live Free or Die" New Hampshire. I would assume (and thereby fall back on a stereotype) that someone in that part of the country would let folks the freedom to do those things not explicitly prohibited.

Whatever your take on constitutional construction, I don't think a woman would get a legal challenge to holding the highest office. Since there's no specific prohibition it would likely take someone bringing suit to prevent her. Keeping aside legalistic considerations (standing?), who would commit political suicide to bring that case? A gender gap may still plague America, but I doubt any legitimate group would advance -- to the point of litigation -- the notion that lack of proper biological plumbing makes you unfit to hold office.

Though, I suppose Justice Roberts could just refuse to swear her in.

8:17 AM  
Blogger Quiche said...

I think its cool that you went to see Chelsea Clinton. For some reason I've wondered what she's like...she seems so intellectual yet normal. Maybe she should run for president some day. Although that would certify the Clintons as the next Kennedys.

4:49 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home