The founders of the Constitution were highly educated men who debated the Constitution and its wording for several weeks in the summer of 1787. At the time women had no right to vote and the political world was patriarchal in nature. It was not until women's suffrage became law with the Nineteenth Amendment that women were placed on an equal basis with men as to the issue of the right to vote.
~However that amendment dealt only with the issue of voting. It did not address the issue of the office of U.S. President. It is clear that the founders never envisioned or contemplated the idea that a woman could become president.
~The Constitution and the laws and treaties of the United States written and entered into under it are the supreme law of the land.
While I am not opposed to a woman becoming president providing that she is not attempting to emulate a self aggrandizing man, I am opposed to allowing a woman to become president unless and until the proper channels are used to duly make an amendment to the Constitution first by the Congress and then by ratification by the states in the same manner as every Amendment has been made except perhaps for the 16th amendment which debatively failed to meet the 2/3 majority of states.
(Hillary can blame this condition on the patriarchy of the Mormon Church who organized their mind-controlled women throughout the United States to resist ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment in 1977.)
Taking an oath, as I did when being sworn into the Bar of, "supporting, protecting and defending the Constitution against ALL enemies foreign or domestic”, was not taken as an oath of passive convenience but rather was and still is a proactive oath to take steps when deemed necessary for the preservation of the Constitution without thought of personal gain or expense. All attorneys take the oath and are in my mind liable for disbarment for their failure to proactively protect it.
~Therefore I firmly believe that a nation of law cannot and must not continue to stand conveniently idle while that precious handwritten document becomes trashed by timely erosion through improper precedent.
It is also interesting to note that the current administration in seeking to stack the Supreme Court with jurists who are "strict constructionists" is itself daily violating the strict language of the Constitution.
~I have prepared this statement for the purpose of seeking support from people of the country who feel as I do that we cannot change law by violating it with precedent but only by political action.
~On or before the first day of May it is my intention to file an action in Federal court seeking an injunction against the presidency of Hillary Clinton on the grounds that such presidency is in violation of the Constitution of the United States.
I am hopeful that will not be necessary, that the Congress by this notice will immediately act to pass an amendment in time for the November elections.
I will appreciate any and all legal arguments pro or con between now and May first 2008.
Douglas A. WallaceMember, Washington State Bar Assn.email@example.com