Well, to be fair, he's just engaging in a well-known school of Constitutional interpretation favored by Justices Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito: "Pulling something out my ass."

Damn! I thought we had neuteured the office of president. We've got to get on this girls, I have lots of inorganic things to neuter and so little time.

hahahahahahahaha. thank you for that laugh.

It seems like he was arguing that women can't constitutionally hold any office-- so why doesn't he go ahead and challenge Speaker Pelosi and/or Senator Clinton (to name 2).

I imagine this same argument under the 13th Amendment would also leave out Obama. And some people have made the ridiculous argument that McCain can't be president: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/019165.html. So, just what are we supposed to do now?

Why would he even think we'd need an amendment to allow women to be President? I don't see anything in the part of the Constitution where it lists the requirements that says the president must be male.

I know I sometimes have the sense of humor of a 15 year old boy, but I cannot stop giggling at the fact that the guy who wrote it's name is Dick.

This is easy, but gratifying to shoot down none the less. The actual language in Article 2, Sec 1 regarding who is eligible to become President reads:
“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�. Please note that any PERSON who meets these conditions is considered eligible. They even went out of their way to avoid the male pronoun “he� (in this section). Mr. Man is just following the logic of our founding fathers who did not even have the foresight to think that one day *gasp* women would be considered actual PEOPLE! Why specify in the constitution that a person= a man when it’s considered a big “Duh�. Now, if space aliens land, co-mingle and are regarded as “persons� in the context of law- they could be eligible (I would think, as long as the ones in question were born/hatched/whatever in the US) because you could argue that person doesn’t have to mean human. (ok, a tangent I know…but I’ve been reading Octavia Butler and am on a Sci Fi kick).

So whatever. We can be president. Suck it up.

This is hilarious. Could he dig his nails in any harder? How desperate does one have to be to resort to this?

Nazrafel beat me to it- there's no constitutional requirement that the president be male- just a natural born, 35-year-old citizen for at least the last 14 years.

Additionally, there are two disqualifications listed: Article 1 states that you can't be president if you have previously been president but were removed by conviction for an impeachable offense. And, the twenty-second amendment: no person who served as president or acting president for more than six years can be president or vice president.

Notice, still no mention of sex. Ker-azy.

Ha! That was funny. It's nice when something is SO ridiculous in its sexism, it's not even upsetting, it's just hilarious.

I am an Obama supporter, but part of me wants Hillary to win just to personally gall Mr. Dick Marple or whatever his name is. What a poop.

This is a real jackass - but the scary thought is that he is actually some sort of an election official in the city of Hooksett in New Hampshire, which scares me a bit, knowing that asshats like these are running around and for office.

I sent the paper a letter:

"My Turn" writer Dick Marple's piece "Legally, a woman can't be elected president" is a disturbing both for its sexism, and for the clear lack of research that the author chose to engage in.

Marple's claim that a woman can't be elected president is completely unsupported- what law does he think prohibits women from being elected? One can only assume that he thinks that the constitution prohibits women from the highest office. Yet, a quick look at Article II, clause 5 of the United States Constitution reveils that:

"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."

Last time I checked, women were still people. And since no woman has ever been impeached from the office of president (Article I), and no woman has served President or Acting President for more than six years (Twenty-Second Amendment), there doesn't seem to be a Constitutional prohibition on a woman President."

ha-- there is also a little thing called the "Equal Protection Clause" which provides equal protection of the laws to every person in federal jurisdiction (you don't even have to be a citizen to get that...)

i really can't believe the paper ran that seriously. it has to be a joke!

I thought the right wingers neutered the office of the president after Bill got a blow job.

Also sent a letter, partially inspired by mgt's point about non-whites and voting rights...

"Legally, a woman can't be elected president" by Dick Marple is one of the most ridiculous propositions I have ever seen. Is he suggesting that all women currently holding public office are there in violation of constitutional language? And also suggesting that people who are not white cannot hold public office, because they were similarly only explicitly given the right to vote (ref. 15th amendment)?

As voters, women are citizens. The use of the pronoun "he" does not preclude us from allowing a "she" to hold office, or indeed to bar them from any area of life. If such a suit were to approach the Supreme Court, they would presumably choose to not even hear it -- their time is better spent with real issues, not sexist and racist arguments over grammar.

Mr. Marple clearly wishes to challenge Senator Clinton's bid for the presidency; let him do so on real grounds. If all he has left is the shocking pronouncement that she has breasts, it's clear that logic has left his argument.

We're dealing with a very angry little man here for a couple reasons: 1) he has shit for brains amd has made an unfounded and baseless constitutional argument, and 2) has THE worst name ever. Can we make Marple into some terrible verb, ala Santorum?

here's my letter (i am procrastinating before class and i just had to write one):

First, I can only hope that "My Turn" writer Dick Marple's piece "Legally, a woman can't be elected President"was printed as a joke. I can't believe that this paper would seriously run such an insult to half of its readership.
Second, Marple made one important oversight: the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Over 50 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence dictates that any gender classification, for employment in government or otherwise, must be met by a reasonable government interest. I would hate to know what Mr. Marple thinks are the legitimate government interests in keeping a woman from being able to serve as President.
As a law student, I can't think of a single lawyer, professor or judge who would give Marple's argument credence. Please Mr. Marple, you're going to try to cook up a constitutional argument,research make sure it's correct.

Momo - not to gross you out, but my roommate says the "santorum" can be sexually arousing. :X

My suggestion: marple = the sexual fluids one acquires from giving oral to a cadaver after having ejaculated in it a few hours previous ...

The author clearly doesn't know that women served and were seated in Congress BEFORE the 19th Amendment was passed (my personal hero Jeanette Rankin), and women have run for president since the mid-1800s.

The author's right, the 19th Amendment does not authorize the right for women to be president. Neither does the 2nd Amendment or the 25th--all of which are completely irrelevant to women serving as president.

The only requirements for being president are being 35 years old, American born and not having served two terms in the past. Since the dawn of the nation, women, blacks, Native Americans and everyone else who was 35 years old and American born could have served as president, even when they couldn't vote.

The only requirements for being president are being 35 years old, American born and not having served two terms in the past.

(+lived in the United States for the last 14 years, and never impeached from the office) /nitpick

This guy is only saying what all the men, and some women are thinking. Look at how the media has treated Hillary. Look at how Obama (and his wife) get a pass on anything they (or his campaign) say. Look at how non-issues become huge "things" if Hillary, Bill, or her campaign folks say it. I've come to the conclusion that sexism, and misogyny are actually worse than racism in the USA.

It's taken a lot to come to that conclusion.

carolina girl has my vote on the interpretation. The Constituiton is clear in the presidential article. It's gender neutral on the qualifications. Although the whole document is full of the male geneder.

And in this case, the first amendment allows him to say such crap. (sigh) But alas, one more reason to pass the ERA. Just to shut up people like him.

Best example of f*cked-constrictionism I've ever seen. :-)

What a freakin dipshit!!!

Since we are not allowed to in any way interpret the Constitution, where is the part that states that men are allowed to hold office?

And everyone knows (or should) that the Constitution was written vaguely on purpose, because our wonderful forefathers knew that it would need to change with the times.

If we aren't suppose to interpret anything in the Constitution, why do we have a Supreme Court? It states in the Constitution (I think) that the role of the Supreme Court is to interpret laws. So...pretty much a dead argument if you ask me.

I kinda feel bad for the guy though...how is he going to handle it when women start owning property and wearing jeans in public?

If Marple is basing his "constitutional language" argument on the use of the word "He" in the presidential clauses, he should be aware that "he" is also used in the Constitution when referring to singular Senators. Many times we see the pronoun "they", as most of the language refers to senators collectively, but in the few instances where a single senator is mentioned, "he" is the pronoun used. This has not been a bar to females holding Senate office; it seems ridiculous to attempt the same argument regarding the Presidency.

This is roughly on a par with the claim that "in the year of Our Lord" is sufficient to render the Constitution a Christian document based on Biblical principles. (rolls eyes)

Does anyone else think the use of the word "neutering" is really weird? I mean, I definitely believe that a job description can be intentionally or unintentionally gendered (and that we need to keep working to change that), but is a female president really such a scary thought that this guy would frame it as an attack this way? Jeez

I wrote this Letter to the Editor:

"I'd like to write the Concord Monitor in regards to Mr. Marple's Letter to the Editor of February 20, 2008.

It's difficult to begin, but simply, Mr. Marple is incorrect. Nowhere in the Constitution is the Office of the President of the United States defined as a "male-gendered" office, in fact, I would dare say that the modern concept of "gender" was entirely alien to the Founding Fathers as well as those who passed the 19th Amendment.

By Mr. Marple's logic, if one can call simply misogyny "logic," then the only people who could be President of the United States are wealthy, white, Protestant, property-holding men; however, as history has shown, and as our laws have evolved, any "person" who is a natural born citizen, who is thirty-five years of age and having been fourteen years a resident of the United States, can be elected our President."

Oh, wow.

Some of you beat me to it, but Art. II, Sec. I, Cl. 5, does not limit the Presidency to women.

It is similar in construction and syntax to Art. I, Sec. 2, Cl. 2 and Art. I, Sec. 3, Cl. 3 (Congress and the Senate, respectively).

The Fifth Amendment does not contain an equal protection clause (i.e. the federal government is not Constitutionally bound to equal protection), although the states are so bound under the Fourteenth Amendment. Technically, however, the states elect the President (electoral college and all), so they would be prohibited from discriminating against women in such a manner.

You could also use this twit's argument to say that blacks cannot be President, as they were not "people" at the time of the Founding. Subsequent Amendments, however, have thankfully done away with such nonsense.

Silly Dick, must have forgotten to add his list of references to his brilliantly written piece:

www.wikipedia.com

Clearly this man knows what he is talking about, NOT.

So I've been doing some research on this Dick Marple guy, and, as it turns out, he's involved in New Hampshire politics and publicly demands to be paid in gold instead of dollars.

Old school, Dick Marple, old school...

The only requirements for being president are being 35 years old, American born and not having served two terms in the past.

This distinction is particularly relevant this year, as McCain wasn't born in the US proper - he was born in the Panama Canal Zone.

(*) Yeah, technically there's still some vagueness around this phrase because it's never been actually legally tested except with people born in the US, but that's what almost every legal scholar believes it means

He is my SO's neighbor. Believe me, his misogyny is 100% real.

Bah. The other day my roommate (a college educated senior) said "I just don't think a woman CAN be president!" Given that she is my roommate, I couldn't let my head explode and my fury be unleashed on her. When I asked her why she just kept saying, "I don't think a woman can do it. It's a man's job." It's sad to hear it from an older man who has grown up with a society that encourages woman hate, but it's even worse to hear it from a girl who has had all the opportunity in the world to know why this shit is wrong and ridiculous.

tina,
all the men eh? best not to generalize I think, or has no man voted for Clinton?

This guy is a off his rocker and truly grasping at ill-conceived straws. I'm sure he has supporters though, its a very big internets and theres all kinds out there.

errr, dig a little beneath the surface and it's almost ALL men. In fact, given the indoctrination we all receive, it's just about all Americans.

It takes a lot of introspection, a lot of consciousness raising to see the amount of anti-woman, pro-male crap out there. It permeates just about everything.

So, yes, ALL men, and almost all women.

The saddest part is that most folks are not willing to look at themselves, accewpt their shortcomings, and change.

Wow. Well Dick Marple made one thing abundantly clear: He is definitely a dick.

"This guy is only saying what all the men, and some women are thinking"

This guy is saying women legally cant be President. You are saying all men, 100%, and most women also believe that?

If you are saying 100% of men and most women belive a woman "shouldn't" be President, well how do you reconcile that sentiment with the men who voted for Clinton and the majority or plurality of women voting for Clinton?

I'm saying that sexism, unconscious sexism, and general hatred of women is all over our society.

If anyone said, "a mixed race person is legally prevented from being president", or,
a black person is..........", the outrage would close down the paper.

As it stands, Hillary can be criticized for being "emotional", "cold", "calculating", "the ice princess", "weak", not "feminine", not "masculine", not capable of garnering "respect", too "strong" to be a "real woman", etc., etc., etc., etc., and there is only some outrage AFTER a whole bunch of CONSUMERS complain. At the same time saying you needed a strong President to get the Civil Rights Act passed is considered some sort of "racism" -- and the entire point being made is ignored.

Behind most of this stuff is misogyny, pure and simple.

@ SociologicalMom:

I too wonder at the use of the word "neuter". I have seen men use in in reference to Important American Matters several times lately. I am going to posit that it indicates a deep, deep fear of powerful women, and/or of the thought of sharing traditionally "male" power positions with women.

One of the other times I saw it used was when I suggested the US shouldn't maintain military bases all over the world. An angered individual asked me why I would want to "neuter" America. I apologized and told him that I too thought of the US as a giant dick, fucking other countries, and on second thought I wouldn't want to damage our virtual, virile American cock. ;)

Can we make Marple into some terrible verb, ala Santorum?

Hey! Don't do that to Mis