Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree that the original Constitution has not been 'physically' altered; i.e., we have not had a scribe go in and, with ink pen, scratch out portions and insert new.
Yet, the wording of the original Constitution has, of course, been changed, via amendments. Here is a good website that shows, in red, those portions of the original document that have changed via amendment. Click on the red area and you are taken to the relevant amendment.
That is exactly what I am talking about. For instance, the language about "3/5" of a person was negated by the 14th Amendment, and in my copy of the constitution, that language is in parentheses with a footnote that states that the 14th Amendment caused that passage to no longer be valid.
My proposed 28th Amendment would read something like this:
"All language in the U.S. Constitution shall be gender neutral".
Then the word "he" in Article I, Section 2 would be placed in parentheses in subsequent publishings of the revised Constitution with a footnote stating that it was negated by the 28th Amendment, and some gender neutral language would be used in its place.
"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."
That is exactly what I am talking about. For instance, the language about "3/5" of a person was negated by the 14th Amendment, and in my copy of the constitution, that language is in parentheses with a footnote that states that the 14th Amendment caused that passage to no longer be valid.
My proposed 28th Amendment would read something like this:
"All language in the U.S. Constitution shall be gender neutral".
Then the word "he" in Article I, Section 2 would be placed in parentheses in subsequent publishings of the revised Constitution with a footnote stating that it was negated by the 28th Amendment, and some gender neutral language would be used in its place.
Real simple.
Even simpler is that we not try to amend the Constitution to amend something that everyone, save you, takes for granted (i.e., that 'he' covers male and female).
I mean, forget Nancy Pelosi: you are claiming that no woman ever elected to the US House or the Senate lawfully served, from Jeannette Rankin to Michele Bachmann.
Even simpler is that we not try to amend the Constitution to amend something that everyone, save you, takes for granted (i.e., that 'he' covers male and female).
I mean, forget Nancy Pelosi: you are claiming that no woman ever elected to the US House or the Senate lawfully served, from Jeannette Rankin to Michele Bachmann.
If they were conservative or libertarian women, they lawfully served.
If they were liberal women, they unlawfully served.
This isn't a self serving statement (pun intended) - by definition, liberals ignore the supreme law of the land.
Their ideology is anthema to constitutional governance.
"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."
It is virtually without doubt that when the founders said "he" they did not mean "she" or ever envision a day when women would serve in the House. Therefore, in keeping with a conservative interpretation of our Constitution, women should immediately be barred from service and replaced by respected Gentlemen from their districts.
It is virtually without doubt that when the founders said "he" they did not mean "she" or ever envision a day when women would serve in the House. Therefore, in keeping with a conservative interpretation of our Constitution, women should immediately be barred from service and replaced by respected Gentlemen from their districts.
Wouldn't it be easier to just amend the constitution to make it clear that women are serving constitutionally when elected to federal office?
It is virtually without doubt that when the founders said "he" they did not mean "she" or ever envision a day when women would serve in the House. Therefore, in keeping with a conservative interpretation of our Constitution, women should immediately be barred from service and replaced by respected Gentlemen from their districts.
And only certain males can vote. Only the guns that were around at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights can be used and so on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
oh great
