In 2008 the author sought the removal of Hillary Clinton from being listed as a candidate for President in the Nevada general election. In this article he explains what happened and why he would not hesitate to do the same thing with Sarah Palin or any other female who should seek the US Presidency and why.

::::::::

A little over three years ago on April 4, 2008 in the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, I filed a lawsuit naming Hillary Rodham Clinton candidate for President of the United States; Ross Miller Secretary of State for Nevada and the Nevada State Democratic Party as defendants.

The purpose for the lawsuit was to attempt to clean up the Constitution of the United States relating to gender generalizations to allow a female to reside in the White House as President of the United States.

The lawsuit # CV08 00866 Reno, NV sought to bar Ross Miller the Secretary of State of Nevada from allowing the name of Hillary Clinton on the Nevada Ballot during the 2008 November general elections based upon the issue that Article II of the Constitution of the United States was gender specific, referencing only a male as holding the office of President.

I asserted that the Constitution as crafted by the Framers was gender specific in which the pronouns of "he" and "his" were used a total of nineteen times. Nowhere is there a reference to a female gendered person by the use of the pronouns "she" or "her."

I alleged that the Framers had no intent or consideration that a woman was a qualified candidate for office of President and that the language "person" was gender specific. I alleged that defendant Clinton was attempting an "end run" around the Constitution.

I further alleged that either [A] the Constitution needed an amendment approved by the Congress and ratified by the states, or [B] the US Supreme Court needed to resolve the issue by a Constitutional order which would end the issue of gender specificity. To date that has not occurred.

I asserted that it was axiomatic that laws may not be changed simply by non-adjudicated challenge or by an overburden of violations attempting to set unlawful precedents, thereby weakening or rendering laws or the Constitution less meaningful by clouding and reducing their impact upon society which is ruled by law.

It has been mistakenly presumed that the Nineteenth Amendment granting the right for women suffrage also silently gave a woman the right to be President.

I had asked the court to declare that defendant Clinton be ruled ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States, or that in the alternative issue a Writ of Quo Warranto requiring her to prove to the court the constitutionality of her quest to seek and occupy the office of President.

It turned out that

1.    Defendant Clinton was not served at her political address in Las   Vegas; that the server found only vacant offices at 1055 E. Tropicana Ave. #'s 425 and 530. However the lawsuit was nationally published by the media and at a minimum, Defendant Clinton had knowledge of its filing.

2.    Secretary of State Ross Miller was timely served and

3.    The Nevada State Democratic Party was timely served.

Since Clinton had not been served within the 20 day period she was not duty bound to respond to the complaint until 20 days of service should she have been served.

The State Democratic Party failed to respond and could have been found in default.

Defendant Ross Miller through the office of the Attorney General of Nevada belatedly responded outside of the 20 day notice to appear.

Indeed, the Attorney General never made a response to the court as is required. What notice and response it issued was to me only. I will fully deal with that response hereafter.

At the time I received the referenced notice, the issue had become moot since Clinton for whatever reason withdrew from her quest for the Presidency. Therefore, it was futile to proceed, as the court would have done what I did, and that was to dismiss the complaint. After carefully checking the clerk's file to make sure that no Defendant had appeared or filed any papers, I could safely dismiss and did.

The belated and private response by the Attorney General's (AG's) office is worth some attention even though I would still argue that it was insufficient and fell short of what is required by law to address and silence the issue by a prior ruling of an inferior court which the AG's office presented as Res judicata.

In STEAMS v. VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS, 353 F. SUPP. 473, 475 (D.C.D.C. 1972)

The District Court held: "Masculine pronouns are often used to refer to antecedents of indefinite or mixed gender without modifying the meaning of the antecedents. Here, The pronoun "he" refers to the word "person", which latter term obviously encompasses both male and female persons." emphasis mine.

This lawsuit was filed by a woman who was an honorably discharged veteran of the U.S. armed forces serving fourteen months of active duty in foreign countries during WW II. In February 1971 she sought membership in the Veterans of Foreign Wars [VFW], a quasi government corporation. Basically ,she was denied membership because of the male pronouns used in the charter or articles of incorporation which caused some if not all male members to regard VFW as a male only organization.

In reaching its ruling, the court often referenced the VFW charter as the "Constitution" giving some tagging to the U.S. Constitution which it was not!

To my knowledge the ruling was never appealed, as likely the male membership of VFW was largely sympathetic to the issue that women should not be excluded from membership. Had the ruling been appealed first to the Circuit Court of appeals and then if necessary to the U.S. Supreme Court, which would likely have upheld the lower court and had simultaneously applied it to the vague gender references of Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the lower ruling would have been determinative of the issue and resolved. That has not happened. Additionally, If The Equal Rights Amendment had not been   defeated by the male dominated hierarchy of the Mormon or LDS Church between 1976 and 1977, the issue would have been resolved.

So at this time, Sarah Palin or any other woman who wishes to become the President of the United States, please take notice that I as a retired attorney will take up the issue again should she or they publicly seek office I do this not because I have any prejudice against a matriarchal led government for I understand that was the way it was anciently.

I simply wish to see the issue resolved as a matter of law in order to keep our laws safe and clean. Perhaps Sarah Palin ought to be spending her present "traveling" time in the US addressing this issue. For you can be sure Sarah that if steps are not taken to correct this legal jungle, you will likely become a defendant in a new lawsuit based on the same issue.

Authors Bio:

Retired Designer-Builder formerly practicing Attorney at Law.

Credentials include ordaining a Black man to priesthood in the LDS Church leading to a public struggle with the church yielding and ordaining Black men about 2 years later. Doug had completed a mission for the British Mission in 1951 with the title of Mission Architect. He consulted with church prophet David O' McKay for approval for construction of the London Temple and was responsible for the preliminary design.>

later in life Doug became disenchanted with the closed nature of the church leadership and sought meetings with them concerning issue which they refused to discuss. That refusal led to his open struggle to force change where and when needed.

He has written his biography and is currently published as "Under the Mormon Tree" available on CreateSpace E Store and soon on Amazon.com To order on E Store click or copy and paste
https://www.createspace.com/Customer/EStore.do?id=3394801

He has also just published 'No Mormon For President' Available at Amazon Books. The book answers the reasons why
Mitt Romney should not be elected president.