0 votes

Debra Medina / Kay Bailey Hutchison Eligibility

The Texas State Constitution...

Article 4 (Executive Department)
Section 4
"...He shall be at least thirty years of age..."
Section 5
"...receive as compensation for his services..."
Section 6
"...During the time he holds the office..."
"...nor shall he practice..."
"...during the time he is Governor..."
Section 7
"...He shall be Commander-in-Chief of the military forces..."
Section 8
"...His proclamation therefor shall state..."
Section 9
"...at the close of his term of office..."
"...he shall recommend to the Legislature..."
etc.

I recognize that were one of the aforementioned women elected governor they would be the third female to hold the office of governor in Texas. It is my desire however, to hear and understand the arguments on either side of this issue as to how one who is a her or she can be eligible for an office that repeatedly declares he or his within the Constitution.

Any input would be appreciated.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Maybe they have something like USC 1.1

The United States Code (USC) says specifically that

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise—
words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things;
words importing the plural include the singular;
words importing the masculine gender include the feminine as well;
words used in the present tense include the future as well as the present;
the words “insane” and “insane person” and “lunatic” shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis;

It would be interesting to find out when they put that in, because until recently it would have been understood. Note also the use of the word "gender" to mean "sex," which is also fairly new.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

Look It Up in the Dictionary

The whole "gender neutral" ("postal carrier" instead of "postman" or "mailman") is only of relatively recent date, and most of us who write find it silly to pander to the politically correct crowd.

As far as I'm concerned, Ms. is an abbreviation for "manuscript."

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

"Gender" too.

The word "gender" refers to grammar. For example, in German the word for a knife is neutral and the word for fork is feminine. "Gender" is not (or was not) a polite synonym for "sex."

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

It is words we are talking about here so "gender" of the word is

properly a subject for consideration.

The words "Man" and "Men" is a generic term referring to all

people regardless of gender.

"He" is the third person singular pronoun form. It is generic as is "men" and "man."

It would be absolutely silly to have to amend laws and constitutions and to write new laws that reflect He/She or Him/Her every time.

Back in the day, people were educated enough to know this, and they intentionally used generic terms for "man" not to exclude women, but to not sound goofy and repetitive.

Are you suggesting that since the Declaration of Independence says "all Men are created equal" that therefore Jefferson was only referring the male gender? He is laughing in his grave at you if so.

There are generic words or

There are generic words or expressions that would apply to both genders such as...

"The person, voted for at said election, having the highest number of votes for each of said offices respectively,..."

You are presuming there would be a need to amend laws and constitutions and to write new laws to reflect he/she etc. There is no need for the individual states nor the states combined to entertain these feministic notions for it is not consistent with the spirit of our founding.

Back in the day, people knew there was no cause for a woman to rule over the people for not only was she not allowed to rule, she was not allowed to vote. This was how this republic was set up. Women were to be keepers of the home caring for their children and houses. Their vote and participation was within the idea that the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. Momma's were responsible for raising up Godly posterity that would later be of a caliber to serve effectively in civil government. When not caring for their children, they were to be helpers to their husbands in whatever endevours were suitable to assist.

It is clear within the Declaration of Independence that "all Men are created equal" did not mean "ALL men" (for it merely meant in idea and practice, all white men) much less mean "ALL men (and women)".

If I was to suggest that Jefferson would laugh at anything (for I nor you really know what he would laugh at), I suspect he would laugh at the idea that our nation would fall so hard that we would have folks promoting feminists to rule over our states and country.

"The appointment of a woman to office is an innovation for which the public is not prepared, nor I." (Thomas Jefferson, As cited in Miller, 1995, p. 184).

Can you give me something a little better than "Miller?"

Like perhaps a book or article title?

I'm not saying he didn't say it, but that is not a complete citation for verification.

How do you get that I advocate feminists in government? Where on Earth did you get that notion?

Sure, there are other generic terms, but there is no need to use them. The terms already there serve the purpose. The terms there are not gender specific.

What is your purpose in raising this question? Do you purport that the female gender is not capable of the post in question?

Are you saying Debra Medina is not qualified because she isn't a male? Otherwise, why are you bothering? (Especially since Texas has already had female governors before and this was not an issue.)

Miller, John Chester. (1995).

Miller, John Chester. (1995). The Wolf by the Ears: Thomas Jefferson and Slavery, Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/fall97/jeffersn.html

One who supports a person of the feminine gender to rule over those of the masculine gender is a feminist.

The terms "he" and "his" are gender specific. If those that drafted the constitution of the states and of the United States wanted to speak of a man, what verbiage would they have used if "he" or "his" actually means "she" or "her"? How would they have said it?

The woman is emotionally led (soul led). Her strengths are in her femininity, her meekness, her beauty, her nurturing and nursing. The man is (or at least should be) spirit led. He should be led by reason and objectivity. I do not believe the female gender is capable of the post in question as a feminist spirit brings about socialism as problems get resolved with emotion rather than reason.

A woman has a higher calling as a wife and mother than as a politician. This country is messed up because the foundation of our government has been destroyed. The foundational form of our government is the family. If the family is messed up, every layer of government above it will be messed up. Thus, every time a woman leaves her station and goes out into the workforce or into politics, she engages in significant harm to the foundation of our government. She outsources her primary responsibility and then our children wind up uneducated, spoiled, products of secular humanistic public schools and each generation becomes worse than the one that preceded it.

If this republic is ever to be restored, we will need to return to a literal interpretation of the Constitution and more so of the Holy Bible. So long as we compromise on these documents, how can we criticize the bad guys when they engage in their many compromises? The documents are either meaningful as they are written or they are meaningless.

Zzzzzzzzz....

Huh? Wha...? Did you say something Dufus?

That's pretty lame.

It is a serious inquiry. If

It is a serious inquiry. If you have a serious, logical response, I very much desire to hear it. If all you are capable of is name calling and mocking, then I am uncertain what value you believe your response has.

The only value my response has

Is the laugh it will give the other members who read your post.

Hypocrite

I suspect that you are no different than the folks you rail against. I believe I shall henceforth call these Beckian tactics. If there was no merit to this constitutional argument, you would argue it from an objective, constitutional perspective rather than this effeminate, emotional tactic you have chosen. You would go about explaining how "he" really means "she". You are unable to as you desire to have women rule over you regardless of what the Constitution says.

Neither Sarah Palin, nor Hillary Clinton were eligible to hold the office of President of the United States. Likewise, neither Kay Bailey Hutchison nor Debra Medina are eligible to hold the office of Governor of the State of Texas. It is ever more evident that even folks within the "patriot" movement merely give lip service to these foundational documents when it becomes uncomfortable to their bias.

If anyone has a serious rebuttal, I am quite open to being persuaded.

And I thought my comment was funny!

Thanks! That was much funnier than what I had typed. :-)