Mormon Dissident Requests US Supreme Court to Rule by Fiat

A Letter addressed to U S Supreme Court seeks to set up a shortcut for the Constitution to be updated to allow women to be president.  The letter is below.

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

Reno, NV 89506

June 27, 2011

William K. Suter, Clerk

Supreme Court of the United States

Washington, D.C.20543-0001

June 27, 2011

RE: Article II U.S. Constitution

Sir,

As a retired attorney, I continue to be somewhat exasperated by the refusal of the courts or of the Congress to address the vagueness of the constitution with respect to the right of a woman to hold the office of President of the United States. As you must know there are some nineteen pronouns within the constitution which address the gender of the president as a male person.

Indeed at the time of the Constitution or of its forerunner, the Declaration of Independence, the thought of a woman other than a member of royalty being involved in politics was an absurdity of the highest order.  It would make one blush to say that the founders in debating the Constitution had any thought whatsoever of a woman filling the office of the President.  We have to remember that the same ideology was applied to the right of women’s suffrage. Passage of the Nineteenth Amendment while allowing women to vote did not clear up the issue posed by the use of male gender pronouns addressing the issues of conduct of the office of President.

In recent years we have had women seeking the office of president either by election as president or as vice a president. The first woman to my knowledge was recently deceased Geraldine A. Ferraro running as a vice presidential candidate with Walter Mondale in 1984. Three years ago Hillary Clinton sought the office of President but later dropped out of the race. That was followed by Republican candidate John McCain choosing Sarah Palin as a vice-presidential running mate during the 2008 elections. Today Michele Bachmann announced her candidacy for president. Sarah Palin is parading about the country in what some would say was an effort as running for president but without formal announcement or legal compliance

When Hillary Clinton ran as a candidate in 2008, I attempted to address the issue of a woman being eligible as a candidate for president by filing a complaint in the Second Judicial District

Page 2.

William K. Suter, Clerk Supreme Court of the United States

June 27, 2011

Court of Nevada being No. CV08 00866  seeking to bar Ross Miller, Secretary of state, from including the name of Clinton on the list of eligible candidates in the primary election. That effort was derailed by the withdrawal of Clinton before the issue could be heard in a lower court. Being then a moot issue I dismissed the complaint as not one of the three defendants had appeared or otherwise challenged the complaint within the court.

The purpose in that effort was not to seek denial of a woman, Hillary Clinton in that case as a viable candidate but rather to see an appealable judicial ruling that would remove any question of the right of a woman to seek the office of President and be elected.

Oddly Ross Miller appeared belatedly by the office of Nevada Attorney General in which a case was cited in an attempt to block me from seeking an order of default and with requests for sanctions against me. The response was never filed with the court and it was dismissed as the issue was moot.

In the case presented by defendant Ross, STEAMS v. VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS, 353 F. SUPP. 473,475 (D.C.D.C. 1972) the court held:

“Masculine pronouns are often used to refer to antecedents of indefinite or mixed gender without modifying the meaning of the antecedents. Here, The pronoun “he” refers to the word “person”, which latter term obviously encompasses both male and female persons.”(emphasis mine).

This lawsuit was filed by a woman who was an honorably discharged veteran of the U.S. armed forces serving fourteen months of active duty in foreign countries during WW II. In February 1971 she sought membership in the Veterans of Foreign Wars [VFW] a quasi government corporation. Basically she was denied membership because of the male pronouns used in the charter or articles of incorporation which caused some if not all male members to regard VFW as a male only organization.

In reaching its ruling, the trial court often referenced the VFW charter or articles of Incorporation as the “Constitution” giving some key word “tagging” to the U.S. Constitution which it was not!

To my knowledge the ruling was never appealed as likely the male membership of VFW was largely sympathetic to the issue that women should not be excluded from membership. Had the ruling been appealed first to the Circuit Court of appeals and then if necessary to the U.S. Supreme Court which would likely have upheld the lower court and had simultaneously applied it to the vague gender preferences of Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the lower ruling would have been determinative of the issue and resolved. That has not happened. Additionally, if the

Page 3,

William K. Suter, Clerk Supreme Court of the United States

Jun2 27, 2011

Equal Rights Amendment had not been defeated by the male dominated hierarchy of the Mormon or LDS Church between 1976 and 1977; the issue would have been resolved.

So at this time, Michele Bachmann , Sarah Palin or any other woman who wishes to become the President of the United States, should take notice that as a retired attorney I will take up the issue again should she or they publicly seek office. I do this not because I have any prejudice against a matriarchal led government for I understand that was the way it was anciently. I simply wish to see the issue resolved as a matter of law in order to keep our laws clean and not established by precedent which does not reflect the strict wording of the law.

At this point of time I am wondering if the court would entertain a request to rule on this issue by fiat without the snail pace of court procedure from trial to two levels of appeal as it did on the issue of declaring that corporations were persons in SANTA CLARA COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY., 118 U.S. 394 (1886).   In that case the court, by fiat, sprang upon the parties without presentment or argument the following statement/ruling:

“The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does.”  

What I would like to see is that the court would act in like manner upon the question of gender relationship with regard to Article II of the Constitution. Can it not by special request /petition of a majority of states Attorneys General make a ruling by fiat on this issue without the formality of a strung out legal issue? Cannot the court issue a request for petitions for determination from the states?

Your procedural counsel is sought so that we may very quickly cure the issue I raise.

Sincerely yours,

Douglas A. Wallace

Inactive member Washington State Bar