Kevin Merck

That’s an interesting question. I never thought of it that way. I hope you keep us posted on the progress.

I wanted to suggest that you post it in the new discussion forum available on this website.

Kevin Merck

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: http://www.wheredmydaddygo.com

Email: j5alvr@aol.com

John Alvarez
Albuquerque, NM

Equal custody of children after a divorce is not just a good idea that would be nice if it were enforced … in the United States it’s the law and must be enforced.

Kevin Merck

It is the Children Ombudsman who made this stupid statement. He is a man. It would be fair for everyone to use a title referring to the correct man, and a title that correspond to who actually made the statement.

In Norway we are working to get him fired after this…