Rule of Men

According to the Constitution of the United States, Hillary Clinton is not allowed to be President.  No woman is.  Surprised?  Here’s how that works:

When describing any of the other offices, the Constitution uses the gender neutral pronoun “they”.  As in “they shall serve”.  But when describing the office of the President, it says, “he shall serve”.  The masculine pronoun.

And sure enough, at that time, no women were running for any office, let alone the Presidency.

Now some would say, “But Mr. Amicable Anarchist, didn’t the 14th amendment change that, when it mentioned ‘equal protection under the law’?”

No, it didn’t.  I say that because while the equal protections clause has been applied to many things, it most notoriously was not applied to the issue of women participating in elections.  Which was why the 19th amendment was later needed, so that women - equal under the law since the 14th amendment - could then vote.

But while the 19th amendment spoke of women voting, it did not speak of women serving as President.  Thus we have a situation where the Constitution describes the office of the President as being for men, the 14th amendment never being applied to women and elections, and the 19th amendment not addressing the issue of a woman President.

Thus only men can be President.  By a plain reading of the Constitution any way.

Why do I bring this up?  Because it demonstrates how we are no longer - if we ever were - a “nation of laws, and not of men”.  We are governed not by a Constitution, but by whatever the men in power say, and it’s past time we all realized that.

You see, that silly argument I made - while true - has not even come up as an issue, nor will it.  Just like the part in the Constitution about how you have to be a natural born citizen to run for President doesn’t come up as an issue when it’s Ted Cruz - a Canadian - or John McCain - a Panamanian - running for the office.

The Constitution serves only one function, and that is to let the masses imagine that they have rights and due process and that they are ruled by some kind of noble principles rather than men.  Men who are capricious thieves and ideologues, who care nothing for them, but only for their own power, prestige and pomp.  

Need more evidence?  How about the Supreme Court’s own words?  Marbury vs. Madison ruled back in 1803 that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

They emphatically say what words in
English - and thus your reality - really is.

Bear in mind that this was entirely a self-awarded power that the court gave itself.  At no point in the Constitution did it delegate the power to the Supreme Court to overrule the dictionary.  Which is really the only thing needed to “interpret” the Constitution.

Think about it.  In a “nation of laws” what could be needed to “interpret” the law other than a copy of the Constitution and a three person panel of English professors with a dictionary?

But in a nation of men, there is no objective law to appeal to.  Examine the Bill of Rights.  Can you find a one - any one at all - that hasn’t been interpreted into meaninglessness with the endless exceptions, qualifications and permutations assigned each one by the Court?  How does “Congress shall make no law…” turn into “Congress shall make any and all laws”?

This is why people get so anxious about who gets to appoint vacant seats on the Supreme Court.  Why?  If we were a nation of laws, it would scarcely matter who was appointed, would it?  But as we’re a nation of men, ruled by men, and at the whims of those men, then it is of vital and consuming importance who is seated.

Thus the insanely un-Constitutional game of not confirming the appointment of a Supreme Court judge until after the upcoming election.  A game which, by the way, will undoubtedly lead to an even more liberal appointee when Hillary wins, as she is almost certain to.  

So there you have it, that is the game.  And there is nothing really to be done about it.  As long as the functions of law and justice are monopolies, it will always be that way.  Only with a privatization of the courts could any semblance of Objective Law, and thus Justice, be achieved.