Presidential Pronouns: Is Hillary Barred From Taking Office as a Female?

It is the rage on the blogs: the argument that the Constitution only refers to “he” and “his” and thus does not provide for a female president — absent an amendment changing the masculine pronouns. Douglas Wallace, 80, has taken this parlor trivia to a new level by filing to block Hillary Clinton from the Nevada ballot.

Wallace, who holds a J.D., insists that the effort to elect a female president is little more than an “end run around the Constitution.” In this lawsuit, Wallace states “The use of female gendered pronouns ‘she’ or ‘her’ are not present in the document, making it conclusive that the framers never intended that a woman would be president of the United States.”

Advocates of this argument often point to the fact that when women were given the vote in 1920 under the Nineteenth Amendment, some objected that it might allow a women to be president but were assured that such a thing could not occur. Such arguments, however, are meritless. Women were expressly incorporated into the political system by amendment and judicial interpretation. The masculine pronouns is merely a historical relic of the time. Indeed, courts currently will use the pronoun as referencing both genders.

Article II uses the pronoun “he” or “his” 19 times, but not one of them will be interpreted to restrict an eligibility to a male. The only requirements are that the person be natural born, at least 35 years old and a U.S. resident for at least 14 years. This has caused a controversy not for Clinton but McCain, click here and here.

For the full story, click here.

24 thoughts on “Presidential Pronouns: Is Hillary Barred From Taking Office as a Female?”

  1. Hi there, i read your blog occasionally and i own a similar one and i was just curious if you get a lot of spam feedback? If so how do you reduce it, any plugin or anything you can suggest? I get so much lately it’s driving me crazy so any help is very much appreciated.

  2. Jay:

    I agree that life at birth is probably a little naive knowing what we now know about biology, but it was the law for centuries in Europe and elsewhere, and at this point, I know of no better approach save only the viability standard. The bottom line is that we should adjust the definition based upon what the most modern biology that we have tells us. I think that is what the SCOTUS was trying to do. They do reference the debate in science about the issue.

  3. Viability–maybe that’s reasonable. But life at birth only is an extreme and radical position driven by pro-abortion ideology with no basis in science, religion, law, or common sense.

Comments are closed.