|
DesideriScuri -> RE: Can a woman be President of the United States sans a Constitutional Amendment? (3/25/2016 12:18:43 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
No misogyny here.
Just a question for all strict Constitutionalists out there.
Article II of the Constitution outlines the powers of the President. It ONLY uses male pronouns. ("He", "His")
Would a female President not be entitled to those powers sans a Constitutional Amendment? We can all rationalize on WHY the Constitution was written that way, but that doesn't answer the question.
Would someone challenge it, if a woman were elected President? Keep in mind the Constitution does not say the President must be male, but rather seems to assume that it is the case.
What do you think?
That is an interesting question. I'm not sure it's ever going to be determined for 100% certainty, either. I do believe original intentions and historical definitions and usage trump current definitions and usage.
Good read from the WaPo
Interesting article from LibertyLawsite.org
Both articles bring up that the Constitution uses the male-gender forms of pronouns, and that at that time in history the male-gender pronouns referred to a male, and it also was used to refer to both genders. It is still common to use the male pronouns when referring to a group of mixed gender people.
From the second link:quote:
This might seem like an odd question, but a journalist recently asked me my opinion about the matter. It turns out that Article II of the Constitution refers to the President as a him. For example: “He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years.” If this “he” meant only a male person, there would be a strong argument that the President had to be a male.
But I believe that this interpretation is mistaken. It is my understanding that the term “he” at the time of the Constitution had multiple meanings or usages. While one of those was to refer to a male person, another was to use the term “he” to mean “he or she.” Under that usage, a female President would be constitutional.
The same issue arises as to members of Congress as well. For example, Article I, section 2, clause 2 provides “No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty-five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.” (Emphasis added.)
The article also points out the irony in the modern feminist movement:quote:
While the original meaning appears to indicate that females can serve as members of Congress or as President, I am not sure that all versions of nonoriginalism support this result. Consider the view that we should interpret the Constitution based on the modern meaning of its terms. In an effort to induce writers not to use “he” to mean “he or she”, feminists and others have suggested that “he” always means a male person and does not have the “he or she” meaning. Suppose they have succeeded in changing the meaning of the word he. Then, under the modern meaning interpretive view, they might have had the unintended effect of prohibiting women from serving as President or in Congress. Another example that illustrates the weakness of the view that interprets the Constitution based on the modern meaning of the words. (emphasis added)
The WaPo link is to a blog by Robert Natelson. Here is a link to Professor Robert Natelson's qualifications.
The LibertyLaw article was written by Michael Rappaport. Here are his qualifications.
Considering that both of them are supportive of originalism, and both of them finish their writings supporting the Constitution NOT barring a female from being POTUS, I think it's pretty solid to think a woman can be President.
Excellent topic! I can say that by 3:18am (Eastern Time Zone), I had already learned something today.
|
|
|
|
