New information 02/05/2008 (John Alvarez Considering Federal Lawsuit to block Hillary Rodham Clinton from Presidency)

I have been studying the US constitution very carefully concerning the upcoming Presidential elections, and have come to a determination regarding Hillary Rodham Clinton's bid for the Presidency - there is no Constitutional allowance for a female President. Under Article ll of the Constitution, any and every reference to the President is made in the very gender-specific terms of "he" or "his." The original writers of the Constitution were very articulate, well-educated, men. Most certainly if they had wished to, they could have included the wording "he/she" in their description of the person who was to hold the office of President. Or, more clearly, if they had desired to do so, could have included the gender-neutral wording "person" in their description of the entity who was to hold the office of President, as they so clearly did when describing offices held under the legislative or judicial branches of government.

There is actually a recent federal lawsuit concerning the 2nd amendment and Washington D. C.'s ban on handguns, which was litigated all the way to the US Supreme court. The basis of the D.C. ban rested on the wording of the 2nd amendment. In the first part of the second amendment it states the right of "a well regulated militia" to bear arms "shall not be infringed." In the second part of the 2nd amendment it states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The lawsuit attempted to dispute the position of the D.C. officials which was that only a "well regulated militia" had the right to bear arms, and at the same time clarify that also "the people" of the US had the right to bear arms, seeing as how the wording of the second amendment included both entities.

In the past, there have been amendments added to the Constitution to allow certain segments of society specific rights. Such as the 15th amendment which allowed former slaves to vote. Or, the 19th amendment, which specifically addressed the issue of allowing women the right to vote. It is very clear to me that the wording under Article ll of the US Constitution is very specific as to what the gender of the President must be according to the founders of this country. If you think about it, it does not make sense that a specific amendment to the Constitution had to be passed to allow women to be involved in government in the aspect of voting, but no specific amendment must now be passed to allow a woman to become the pinnacle of US government (the President) despite the very clear wording of Article ll? So I say, should there be any legal question or dispute of said wording, it should be decided by a court decision or a new amendment to the Constitution, or by simply rewording Article ll, and not by a select few who wish to interpret the Constitution subjectively to achieve their own ends.

If the issue of wording does not seem important to you, consider the wording on literature available from family law and domestic violence agencies here in New Mexico. When describing the domestic violence abuser, the wording very specifically states "he" or "his" or "him." But, when describing the domestic violence victim, the wording is always specifically "she" or "her." It is very clear that the writers of the domestic violence literature, again most likely very articulate and educated, very specifically used the wording that they did to delegate the position of DV abuser to the man, and the position of DV victim to the woman. Why would we believe that the great and most esteemed founders of our country would have done any less.

I personally have no issue with a female President. As long as it was Constitutionally sanctioned, and she was duly voted into office, and would carry out her Presidential duties capably and competently. But, what I do have an issue with, is certain segments of the population or government usurping the precepts and authority of the Constitution on personal whim, or for their own ends. This has taken place over and over again in my fight to see my daughter and be a father to her. Family Court Judges (such as Albuquerque Judge Angela Jewell) have in open court denied me my 7th amendment right to a jury, my 8th amendment right to protection against cruel and unusual punishment, and my 13th amendment right to protection against involuntary servitude, and have gotten away with it unpunished.

I am sick and tired of the laws of the US, and the rights of it's people (all people) being subjectively applicable depending on circumstances that a privileged segment of the government, or the population decide. The violation, and the subjective interpretation of the articles and amendments of the Constitution by select members of government and society must end. I am considering a federal lawsuit to block Hillary Rodham Clinton from becoming President if and until the male specific wording of Article ll is clarified by court decision, Constitutional amendment, or simply changed to include either an appropriate feminine or gender neutral pronoun.

I have a Constitutionally valid legal argument. If you are an attorney experienced in federal lawsuits and you are interested in taking my case please contact me at j5alvr@aol.com

Please forward this email onto as many as possible.

John Alvarez

Writer/Producer/Host

"Where'd My Daddy Go?"

Website: www.wheredmydaddygo.com

Email: j5alvr@aol.com

So let me see if I've got this straight. You believe that father's rights are being violated in child custody cases, so your answer is to....

Bar women from becoming President?!



You can't possibly be serious.

I think the constitution when referring to he/him/his were generic terms. back when it was written women were little more than indentured slaves. Just the like the part about a well regulated militia. It was written many years ago and a lot has changed except the wording of the document.

One thing that I believe most people in the US do not realize is, along with the many things the Constitution is, it is also a legal contract. A contract between the founding governing officials of this country and the future governing officials and people of this country as to how to administer the US and it's government. Now, one of the pesky inherent characteristics of a legal contract is, whether we like it or not, or whether it's politically correct or not, or whether is chivalrous or not, it must be followed to the letter (or more appropriately in this case, word).

Now this particular legal contract has provisions included into it to make changes (amendments) if changes are deemed necessary, but lacking the procedural process (introducing a bill to make a constitutional amendment) then the legal contract (Constitution) must be strictly adhered to. Any contract attorney worth his/her salt knows that one word can completely alter the meaning or the intent of a contract. If "and" is included instead of "or" then the contract is legally binding in a completely separate form than had "or" been used.

If there is any question in your mind concerning this, search the internet for the multimillion dollar judgements that have been awarded concerning breach of contract over just one little word. So, if such scrutiny and attention has been placed on contractual documents that do not have 1/1000 of the relevance or significance of the founding template of our country and our government, should we just slide this issue under the radar because we don't want to offend anyone's or any group's delicate sensibilities.

John Alvarez

May I ask why it's so important to you that the Constitution be interpreted as such that women are not allowed to be President? Let's just say for the sake of argument that you are correct and the Constitution prohibits women from being President. Do you think that is a fair and equitable situation? Would you stand in the way of an amendment granting women the right to elected positions?

This is why I do notr like the "strict constitutionalist" thing. I smoke therefore my "right to happiness" is being in fringed on--I want it stopped or change the constitution.

In answer to the first part of your question, there is no need for "interpretation." The wording is very clear as to what the Constitution is stating in article ll. To the second part of your question, no I wouldn't believe that it would be equitable. But, as I have learned through personal experience in my own situation, my personal belief has absolutely nothing to do with how "fair" I am treated by the government officials dealing with my case. Or, how recognizant they are of my own, or my daughters constitutional rights.

And finally, in answer to your third question (which I already actually answered in my original post), It would be very hypocritical of me to claim to care for my daughter and then work to take away opportunities that should be available to her when she becomes a woman. But, as I knew would happen, the attention from the real issue is being diverted towards something else. My original post was not meant to "prohibit" women from becoming President. If women are barred from becoming President by the Constitution itself as I read in article ll then, as I stated before, and as "CHUQ" so clearly confirmed, whether we "like" it or not, whether it sticks in our craw, or whether it's PC or not, then that is what must be followed. It is not up to certain individuals or segments of society to say " I don't like that particular part of the Constitution because its discriminatory against women, or just because we don't personally like it, so without going about the proper procedure to change it, lets just not follow it." President Bush kept people in prison without charging them, he wiretapped without getting a court order, and you know what, I agree with the actions he took to protect the country. But, what I absolutely do not agree with is, him going about this without following the procedural accomidations included in the Constitution to get this done.

He is the President of the US, but no matter who anyone is, they do not have the right to usurp the precepts of the supreme law of the land (Constitution) under any circumstances. Because if we allow that to happen, then what circumstances become good enough to do this, and what person or segment of society is allowed to decide exactly what circumstances are good enough? So yes, if it was done procedurally, as the Constitution has alloted for, and if the people of the US were supportive of it, I would fully support a constitutional amendment to allow women to hold the office of President, or probably more simply, to change the wording in the Constitution to include a feminine or gender-neutral pronoun.

John Alvarez

Don't hold your breath for a gender-neutral pronoun anytime soon. Don't the rules of English allow for the use of masculine pronouns to represent the female gender when the gender of the person being referred to is unknown?

Actually, Article 2 clause 5 lists the qualifications for office...And notice, gender isn't listed as being one of those qualifications...Not even a mention of 'him' or 'he'...It says PERSON.

Last I heard...Person means either male or female.

Personper�son �� (p�rsn) KEY �

NOUN:

1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.
2. An individual of specified character: a person of importance.
3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
4. The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person.
5. Physique and general appearance.
6. Law A human or organization with legal rights and duties.

Article Two of the United States Constitution

Clause 5: Qualifications for office

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

By the time of their inauguration, the President and Vice President must be:

natural born citizens (or citizens at the time of the Constitution's adoption)
at least thirty-five years old
inhabitants for at least fourteen years of the United States.

I also visited law sites that have it listed...And in them as well, under 'qualifications', the wording is 'PERSON', not 'him' or 'he'. The male useage is only mentioned in regards to removing a President from office, or in the instance of the death of a President in office...

But as to the qualifications of who can be president, or even to hold any political office in goverment, the term always used is 'Person' or 'Persons'.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec1
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html

So as you can see, where qualifications are concerned of who can be president...The constitution's wording is very gender neutral with it's useage of the word 'Person'. My own personal opinion as to why they worded the qualifications as such, is that they did hold that sometime in the future, that women would hold seats of goverment authority.

They weren't closing the door to the possibility, but was leaving that door open for future generations to determine for themselves. And that was accomplished when an amendment was made, allowing women the right to vote. Allowing the word 'person' to give women that right to run for office as well once they obtained the right to vote.

If your logic is applied to the Constitution, then essentially, the beginning of the preamble "We the people" would have included everyone in all of the subsequent articles or amendments coming after those first 3 words, and there would have been no specific need for the adding of the 13th, 15th, or 19th amendments. "People" is simply the plural form of "person" and I'm sure you recognize that women and african americans, or any other "living human" (your own post's definition) born in the US qualify as "people." Yet, to reiterate, despite "all" the "people" for whom the Constitution was created for, why was there seen a specific need to add the aforementioned amendments? Seems to not quite make sense using your argument? And, you're final statement actually supports the argument I am attempting to make. Yes, we as the future generation must now determine for ourselves whether we are, or are not following the precepts that the founding fathers layed down in the Constitution. And, the only way to do this, is to have this issue scrutinized, debated, and argued up to and until the point of court decision, or introducing Constitutional amendment legislation.

John Alvarez

I still don't understand where you're going with this. Are you trying to suggest that Hillary should drop out of the race until this issue is decided?

I sincerely doubt that Hillary would concern herself over whatever suggestion I had. But, either way, I don't particularly care what Hillary plans on doing. As I have made very clear, my issue or question deals with whether we are following the laws and edicts of the Constitution concerning one of the most important decisions we make collectively as a nation - electing the next President of the United States of America.

In my personal experience in a district family court here in Albuquerque, NM, I have seen local judges such as Angela Jewell and others, not only not follow the laws of the Constitution, but thumb their noses at, and symbolically spit on the Constitution daily. I have contacted every NM government official, and US government official possible to have this investigated, but no one cares about constitutional rights violations in little old NM right?

I have been thoroughly convinced that the rights commanded by the Constitution towards the citizens under it's vigil, have degenerated into being applied selectively or subjectively, as many of the other laws in this nation have now become. Law is being applied now based on social status, political power, or financial resources (upper class white collar criminals going to coutry club prisons or Cheney shooting a man after consuming alcohol and not a day in jail) or more towards my point, based on gender (Debra LaFave rapes her male student and not one day in jail or Clara Harris who muders her husband and gets joint custody yet I have not seen my daughter in 2 years with all allegations against me disproved).

I and my daughter have been directly, blatantly denied in open family court our basic constitutional, civil, our very human rights. And, the reason that Judge Jewell or any other family court judge gives for taking this position is, "I'm erring on the side caution" or "just because you were not found guilty Mr. Alvarez doesn't mean the crime did not happen, it just means they did not have enough evidence to convict you" or "I am acting in the best interest of the child." I don't recall seeing anywhere in the Constitution that if a family court judge or anyone for that matter thinks there is a good enough reason, constitutional rights may be denied.

The violation of constitutional rights is epidemic in family courts today, and no one seems to care. I have met with officials, I have written letters, I have filed complaints, I have filed charges, but nothing is done. So, maybe if no one is concerned about the issue of constitutional rights violations based on gender discrimination against men in a little family court in NM, maybe they will be concerned about constitutional violations based on gender happening on the national, if not world, stage after my lawsuit is filed. Because, if I am right, and the founding fathers intent in the Constitution under article ll was to allow only a male President, and we allow Hillary to run, and possibly win the office, without following the proper procedure for amendment, then isn't that what is happening here - allowing a constitutional violation to make accomidations or allowances for Hillary's gender? Isn't that gender-discrimination, most likely what many are attributing to me as my motives?

John Alvarez

Here's my whole intake in what's wrong with your argument Injstwry...Your implied message is that those who were voted into Presidential office during the early useage of the Constitution were male...And that until then, only males were put into office. That the presidential office was ment for males only..

But you seem to forget one little simple thing that qualified them for running for President...It wasn't their gender that determined whether or not they could be president, but whether or not they were US citizens and had voting privelages...The approval/disapproval wasn't on the grounds of gender, but who was allowed to vote in those days.

In otherwords, only American citizens at that time who were white adult males had voting privelages. Not women, not blacks, nor children. Thus by default, only males at that time were qualified to become president, because of their voting privelages.

Now, due to new articles added to the Constitution, women and blacks are afforded the right to vote as well...Which means, as an American that has voting privelages, they are in turn allowed to not only take advantage of their voting privelages, but apply for political office as well...In effect, using their own vote to vote themselves into office...Just as our founding fathers did.

The constitution itself in no way implies, that only males can run for president. Hence the reason that they use the term 'Persons' in regards to presidential qualifications.

Since Presidents are VOTED into office, that means those running for President must be able to vote as well...And by allowing blacks and women the right to vote, that opened the door to blacks and women running for goverment offices...Including the Presidential office as well.

You want to focus on the gender issue, but the real issue was WHO WAS ALLOWED TO VOTE when the constitution was created and put into effect.

Up to and until the 19th amendment was passed, there was no specific wording in the Constitution either allowing or disallowing women to vote. It does discuss in the 14th amendment that if voting rights are denied to "the male inhabitants of such state" that state's "representation" would be "reduced" proportionally according to the number of male citizens "twenty-one years of age in such state." But, it does not specifically state that women are barred from voting. So, once again, until the 19th amendment, there is no mention or discussion in the Constitution of voting rights as they pertain specifically to women.

Now, you and I both know that in any legal contract, if there is not wording disallowing a specific person or action concerning the parties involved, it is automatically assumed and implied that this person or action is allowed. That is the nature of a legal document or contract, and the entire reason they are created. That is why I have seen contracts as long as a 50 pages long to account for every concieved of possibility (and I am aware of the 10th amendment which reserves rights to the people which were not accounted for in the constitution, but the 10th amendment already existed when the 13th, 15, and 19th amendments were introduced, and there was still seen the need to enact them).

So, despite there being no specific wording in the Constitution disallowing women from voting, there was still seen the need to introduce, pass, and enact the 19th amendment. My question is, why did the legislators of that time feel it necessary to pass a specific amendment allowing something that the Constitution, to my knowledge, never specifically disallowed? Could it possibly be that even though there was no specific wording barring women from voting, the US legislators of the time of the 19th amendment's passing, understood and accepted that this was the directive that the founding fathers had implied in the Constitution?

And, why would they have come to the conclusion that this is what the past US legislators had implied? Could it possibly be the word "male" in the 14th amendment that caused them to come to this conclusion? I understand what article ll clause 5 states, but it only states this after the 16th and 19th words of article ll "he" and "his" had already established the gender of the the President. And then, all subsequent pronouns describing the President afterward in article ll, did the same. So, if the catalyst for the 19th amendment was based only on the word "male" in the 14th amendment, and not on specific wording denying women the right to vote, we can only assume that the use of male pronouns such as "he" or "his" in article ll also, although not specifically worded to deny women the right to become President, implies the gender of the one the founding fathers wished to hold the office of President. Therefore, in the same way there was seen to be a need to pass an amendment to allow women to vote, based only on an implied directive from the past legislators, there is now a need to pass a specific amendment to allow a woman to become President

You believe that the right to be President rests on whether a citizen is a voter. But, clause 5 of article ll in your own post nowhere states that voting is a qualification for the office of President. It simply states that one must have been born here, be 35, and have lived here for at least 14 years. But remember, it gender-neutrally stated these qualifications after, and only after aleady having established through gender-specific pronouns in the second sentence of article ll, the sex of the President. And, as for your earlier post, masculine pronouns used to describe a person when gender is unknown may be acceptable when engaged in everyday English dialogue or writings, but not when dealing with legal matters. An identical word in legal language and everyday English could have an entirely different meaning and definition.

John Alvarez

There are many reasons Hillary shouldnt be pres, but her gender isnt one of them