How far will Hillary Clinton take her sexism?
Douglas Milnes
11

While I agree with you in principle, D, given that late unpleasantness circa 1776 between our respective nations I might remind you that we do things a tad differently Across the Pond….

That said, even an honorary title such as “First Lady” is and always has been problematic and in my Strict-Constructionist mindset, anti-constitutional:

“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

(Article I, Section 9, Constitution of the United States of America

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html )

Clearly as “first lady” Hillary Clinton strained the parameters of her nonexistent role in governance to the utmost, but the very assigning of an implicit status of nobility to anyone in a Republic founded in part on a concept of disallowing peerages, in my view has been a grave error on our part as a society all along.

I don’t know why anyone requires nobility as a class unto itself in order to consider a society properly ordered, but in this one I have long believed that a passing mention of “his wife” or in the case here submitted, “her husband” is more than appropriate in discussing the goings-on of a person that by law is essentially, no more than an ordinary citizen, and in terms of an official role,

nobody.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.