Now everyone here knows of course that President Obama is a Nubian Kenyan Marxist Communist Socialist Other-ists-That-Conservatives-Don't-Know-The-Meaning-Of. Not because any of these things are actually true, but because Republicans can't stand to admit that he's a legitimate citizen and President of the United States, after all if he's not eligible to be the President they don't have to bear the thought of one of "them" being their leader.
Most people, including myself, thought that this is unique to Obama because of the color of his skin. But apparently it doesn't stop there. Evidently Conservatives these days will do anything to lie to themselves and claim any Democratic President isn't legitimate.
Hillary couldn't have been President either according to them. Why? Because she's a woman and therefore not Constitutionally eligible to be President.
Follow me through the looking glass if you dare.
Watching Hardball tonight I heard that full time sweater vest model Rick Santorum was a supporter of the Line-Item Veto during his time in the Senate. I fired up the laptop and checked out the Wikipedia entry on its history in the U.S. and moved on to the Presentment Clause article when I saw it was ruled unconstitutional under that clause.
I noticed then that all of the text of the clause referred to the President as He or Him and was wondering if any articles existed about people arguing the Constitutionality of a woman President.
When I Googled the subject the first article was from the horribly inaccurately named blog The Liberal Lie, The Conservative Truth.
This article seen here was written before Sarah Palin and before to my knowledge any of the birther nonsense began.
In the article the author argues that because the Nineteenth Amendment was needed to give women the right to vote it stands to reason that the founders, who hadn't put that in the original version of the Constitution wanted to limit the Presidency to men only.
I argue here that if the reference of HE was just a custom that the need to amend the Constitution for women to vote would not have been necessary since the change in society to allow better equality for women would have made voting possible as time and society allowed. Therefore since an amendment was necessary to allow women to vote customs of the eighteenth century are NOT the criteria for referring to the President by the male gender.He then drives it home with this.
While I am not in the remotest sense conceding the election to Senator Clinton, it does stand to reason that if she were elected there would be a very strong case in claiming that her election was not Constitutional based on an origionalist interpretation of the Constitution and understanding how Article II differs in reference and writing in reference to the male gender from any other Article, Amendment or definition found in the Constitution.So remember this: Democratic Presidents are never legitimate.