Swalwell Laments Absence of A Single Reference To “Women” . . . In Constitution Without Single Reference To “Men”

I recently wrote about the announcement by Democratic presidential candidate Eric Swalwell that he would only consider women for vice president — refusing to consider a man regardless of his credentials for the second highest position in the country. Now Swalwell has publicly lamented that the United States Constitutional does not have a single reference to “women” as an “unacceptable” exclusion of women. Swalwell appears to have dismissed the fact that “men” is also absent to the document which refers to “people” and “person.” Sometimes it is as hard to find a noun in a constitution as it is a breakout issue in an election.

On Tuesday, Swalwell tweeted: “Do you know how many times the word ‘Woman’ is mentioned in the Constitution? Zero.”

Eric Swalwell@ericswalwell

Do you know how many times the word “Woman” is mentioned in the Constitution?

Zero.

That is unacceptable. Women must be equally represented and equally protected. #ERANow8,46110:09 PM – Apr 30, 2019

By the way, other terms are not mentioned in the Constitution but are still part of the Constitution including the “separation of church and state” and “privacy.” Another thing not mentioned? “Political party” which (given this latest controversy) may have been the wisest omission of all.

76 thoughts on “Swalwell Laments Absence of A Single Reference To “Women” . . . In Constitution Without Single Reference To “Men””

  1. Sonny Boy Swalwell stating the unobvious but fails to state why he has failed to file an amendment to the Constitution, Lazy or pollo.

  2. This dork might swallow well but god or dog only knows what he is sucking.

  3. Neither is the word, ‘man,’ not one time… I’d rather as a conservative have a ‘swell- wall’ than a odd Swalwell… smh…

  4. Swalwell seems to have huddled with Michael Moore about the “stupid white men” who draftred the Constitution – and apparently anticipated the need for a Constitution which excluded gender from its guarantees altogether.

    But Swalwell has already exposed his ignorance of the Constitution by repeating the old canard that the Second Amendment only applies to organized, state-sponsored military units.

    In doing so, he committed rhetorical suicide with jawbone of an ass by telling someone that the Secod Amendment had no practical application since Hiroshima and Nagasaki because the government could always destroy an armed populace with nuclear weapons. Now he’s the General Jack D, Ripper of the Left, and very few of us give him a chance to forget that remark of his.

  5. Women make the population of the nation…or not. The American fertility rate is in a “death spiral.” The population of America is being imported. Americans and America are vanishing. The rejection of their role and the decline of productivity of women is an existential threat to America. Globalization of American enterprise and jobs is a contributing factor. America’s fertility rate is 1.6 while that of Sub-Saharan Africa approaches 8. There are 1.4 billion Chinese, 1.3 billion Indians and .25 billion Americans.

  6. The reason they call these organizations “political parties” is because they get drunk on the weekends at their bar b ques. They are keeping the voters down!

  7. Uh, this is not a “controversy” JT. much as you try to make it one.

    1. Killing a child you deem a burden is today’s Holocaust exponentially.
      It is a travesty you think Roe v Wade is morally acceptable

      ____

      The effect of Buck v. Bell was to legitimize eugenic sterilization laws in the United States as a whole. While many states already had sterilization laws on their books, their use was erratic and effects practically non-existent in every state except for California. After Buck v. Bell, dozens of states added new sterilization statutes, or updated their constitutionally non-functional ones already enacted, with statutes which more closely mirrored the Virginia statute upheld by the Court.[16]

      The Virginia statute which the ruling of Buck v. Bell supported was designed in part by the eugenicist Harry H. Laughlin, superintendent of Charles Benedict Davenport’s Eugenics Record Office in Cold Spring Harbor, New York. Laughlin had, a few years previously, conducted a number of studies on the enforcement of sterilization legislation throughout the country and had concluded that the reason for their lack of use was primarily that the physicians who would order the sterilizations were afraid of prosecution by patients whom they operated upon. Laughlin saw the need to create a “Model Law”[17] which could withstand a test of constitutional scrutiny, clearing the way for future sterilization operations. Adolf Hitler closely modelled his Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring on Laughlin’s “Model Law”. The Third Reich held Laughlin in such regard that they arranged for him to receive an honorary doctorate from Heidelberg University in 1936. At the Nuremberg trials after World War II, Nazi doctors explicitly cited Holmes’s opinion in Buck v. Bell as part of their defense.[18]

      Sterilization rates under eugenic laws in the United States climbed from 1927 until Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942). While Skinner v. Oklahoma did not specifically overturn Buck v. Bell, it created enough of a legal quandary to discourage many sterilizations. By 1963, sterilization laws were almost wholly out of use, though some remained officially on the books for many years. Language referring to eugenics was removed from Virginia’s sterilization law, and the current law, passed in 1988 and amended in 2013, only authorizes the voluntary sterilization of those 18 and older, after the patient has given written consent and the doctor has informed the patient of the “consequences” as well as “alternative methods of contraception”.[19][20]

      The story of Carrie Buck’s sterilization and the court case was made into a television drama in 1994, Against Her Will: The Carrie Buck Story. It was also referred to in 1934’s sensational film Tomorrow’s Children, and was covered in the October 2018 American Experience documentary “The Eugenics Crusade”.

      Although this opinion and eugenics remain controversial, the decision in this case still stands.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell

    2. He’s not trying to make it one. Swallwell says something inane. Turley puts it out on the buffet to be admired.

  8. I love how you slid over the fact that Political Parties are not mentioned in the Constitution in any place, but you failed to address why! The “Why” is because the government, a republican form of Government, is based upon the assembly of the States to form a Union that the States can Govern the Country Together as Equals. The basic definition of Congress is an Assembly of the States, The United States, in Congress Assembled!

    The Parties are not Member States in our Union and therefore are not Assembled into Congress, the are are not represented in Congress, and they have no rights of Suffrage in Congress, and no Suffrage means no right to Participate in Congress. Those Affiliated with Political Parties must be represented and participate through their States just like everyone else!

    No one has the right to reorganize Congress to be anything but an Assembly of the States because it’s the States that are the Union, and its the States that are guaranteed a republican form of Government, and its the States that have undeniable Equal Suffrage in the Senate, the predominant Governing institution in our Confederated Republic Governing System.

    Party Affiliation only represents many levels of corruption, interference, and conflicts of interest in an effort to control our Governing institutions and processes to achieve a Partisan agenda!

  9. Was there immediate and universal correction of his misstatements, or did this ridiculous Tweet gain traction in the media and among voters?

    I blame the public education system for our current pool of voters without any savvy.

    1. Indeed, that 40% would vote for a lying clown like Trump is very discouraging. As to Swalwell, what is he polling again?

      1. Anon:

        A Muslim kills a gay man. Blame Christians.

        A Democrat says something ignorant. Blame Republicans.

        How about lay blame squarely where it lies, at the feet of the perpetrator? Trump will eventually say something that you can blame him for later.

        1. Karen. Say what?

          Did I blame a Christian for a Muslim killing a gay man? I must have been drunk.

          1. The Left can be depended upon to blame or reference Christians every time there is some atrocity done in an Islamic country. Every time a Democrat does something stupid or wrong, the Left will invariably bring up Republicans.

            For instance, there was that inane remark by bettycath on the Brunei thread saying Christians believe that all gays should be killed because of Leviticus, and then fled when she was refuted.

            Watch. The next time Ilhan Omar makes some anti-semitic remark, the Left will respond with something about the alt-right, or Christians, or Trump, or conservatives. They won’t just say, that was anti-semitic and wrong. They wouldn’t even pass a resolution condemning anti-semitism.

            It’s a well remarked upon trend that is quite mainstreamed.

    1. Karen, Honey, it has been explained to you many times that there is no “left”, as used by Faux News to describe people who disagree with Trump. Most Americans do not support Trump and didn’t vote for him. Trump is not a conservative, either. Conservatives do not believe in increasing the national debt by massive tax cuts for the super-wealthy or going further into debt by creating stupid vanity projects, like a space force. They also are not racist or misogynist, and would violently protest against a hostile communist foreign power getting away with helping a candidate cheat to win. Conservatives are patriotic. Trump is not. Conservatives also believe in the rule of law and that no one is above the law. Barr’s pathetic lying to cover for Trump has conservative’s heads spinning.

      Trump’s disciples are in a class by themselves–a very distinct minority who support what Trump stands for: racism, misogyny, xenophobia, islamophobia, and adulation for a sad, pathetic narcissist. You need to stop stealing labels like “the left” and “conservative” to describe Trump. They don’t apply.

      1. To the extent they don’t apply to Trump, it is actually for good reasons. LIke the fact that he has finally advanced the cause of fair trade over free trade, a false dogma that used to be embraced by both parties. he has single handedly demolished that false idol and the industrial workers of America and captains of heavy industry praise him for his success. Steel workers, in particular.

        https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/03/08/united_steelworkers_leo_gerard_members_wont_forget_what_trump_did_he_stopped_wealth_transfer.html

        1. why does natacha always taunt and say “karen honey”. it is very obnoxious and condescending. your provocations of others are duly noted.

  10. How ignorant are we that we allow people to make such outrageous and unsubstantiated statements? The reality is that there is no mention gender, age, race, religion, status, citizenship, or any other factor other than being an inhabitant at the time of the current census for the right to be counted for the purpose of the Apportionment of Equal Representation, and equal participation through Representation anywhere in the Constitution.

    Furthermore there is no statement of race, gender, wealth, social status, or wealth in the qualifications for representatives, Senators, the President, or the Vice President.

    All related sections are quoted below, if you are having trouble justifying your comments!

    Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3
    Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

    Article 1 Section 2 Clause 2
    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.

    Article 2 Section 1
    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    You don’t get to a mentioned of race and sex until the 14th Amendment which is in direct violation of the above 3 clauses which intentionally do not make any qualifications on “Persons”, meaning the Constitution was written on a per capita basis, all the equalities are applied equally to all inhabitants as a result.

  11. Perhaps he thought the Constitution should have said more about the Cowomander in Chief, or the womanner in which the census was to be conducted.

  12. JT didn’t mention how Eric was roasted on Twitter shortly after his “womyn” announcement. Cue Helen Reddy and hear him roar…..

    https://ijr.com/swalwell-roasted-claiming-woman-left-constitution/

    In an attempt to show support for the rebirth of the ERA, Swalwell took to Twitter to explain that the word “woman” is included “zero” times in the Constitution. He claimed that was “unacceptable.”

    Unfortunately for Swalwell, he didn’t know that the word “man” is also missing from the Constitution, meaning the words “man” and “woman” are “equally represented.” Several Twitter users were happy to point out Swalwell’s mistake.

    Several mocked the congressman for his dramatic and incorrect tweet by listing other things that are not named in the Constitution as well as women.

    Others mocked him for his obvious attempt to pander to women, questioning his political skills after his failed attempt to win female voters over.

    Eddie Zipperer, an opinion contributor for the Daily Caller, also called out Swalwell for his presidential platform that targets the Second Amendment. As IJR previously reported, Swalwell has promised to impose a ban on “military-style” weapons and a mandatory gun buyback program if he were to become president. He also claimed he would send those who didn’t participate in the buyback to prison.

    Charles C. W. Cooke
    @charlescwcooke
    “Man” isn’t in the Constitution either.
    9,419 12:18 AM – May 1, 2019
    756 people are talking about this

    jon gabriel
    @exjon
    Do you know how many times the word “Man” is mentioned in the Constitution?
    Zero.
    31.7K 12:17 AM – May 1, 2019
    8,172 people are talking about this

    Several mocked the congressman for his dramatic and incorrect tweet by listing other things that are not named in the Constitution as well as women.
    Derek Hunter
    @derekahunter
    There is not one mention of men, cats, or dogs either. This madness must end!
    274 2:26 AM – May 1, 2019
    70 people are talking about this

    Matt Walsh
    @MattWalshBlog
    The word “man” isn’t in the Constitution either. Also the words “futon,” “kangaroo,” “iPhone,” “shoe,” “banjo,” and “floccinaucinihilipilification” make no appearance in the document. This is completely unacceptable.
    2,219 7:11 AM – May 1, 2019
    462 people are talking about this

    Others mocked him for his obvious attempt to pander to women, questioning his political skills after his failed attempt to win female voters over.

    neontaster
    @neontaster
    Eric Swalwell is like a cartoony feminist side character in an old sitcom.
    1,463 8:40 AM – May 1, 2019
    247 people are talking about this

    @dangainor
    It’s like you are trying to be the worst congressman in history
    1,134 5:15 AM – May 1, 2019
    90 people are talking about this

    Eddie Zipperer, an opinion contributor for the Daily Caller, also called out Swalwell for his presidential platform that targets the Second Amendment. As IJR previously reported, Swalwell has promised to impose a ban on “military-style” weapons and a mandatory gun buyback program if he were to become president. He also claimed he would send those who didn’t participate in the buyback to prison.

    Eddie Zipperer
    @EddieZipperer
    Do you know how many times “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is mentioned in the Constitution?
    Once….
    And that’s all it takes.
    3,187 8:17 AM – May 1, 2019

  13. But the founding document of our nation, the “Declaration of Independence,” states the “all men are created equal.” And women were denied the vote in most states until 1920 when Amendment XIX went into effect (the right to vote cannot be denied “on account of sex”).

    1. Both documents were and still are revolutionary- they set us on the path for the rights of all people. Our founders were educated, wise, and brave unlike our “modern” society. The current obsession of the left with denigrating them is ironic.

  14. Let’s posit the Wiki biography on this bloke is accurate. What do you see? (1) On the make and (2) daddy issues. Keep him away from any position of responsibility. For the rest of his life.

  15. and he wonders why he’s at 0% in all the presidential polls. He’s pathetic.

  16. Stalwell is a California surfer dude with dangerous ideas. He’s not getting my gun, changing our Constitution or becoming President. At best, he’ll catch a big one and hang ten.

    1. Actually, he’s from a Bay Area exurb well inland, and lived in Iowa before that. FWER, he eschewed Calfiornia’s state schools and enrolled in college in Maryland. Since he landed a berth at College Park, most of the UC schools (and all the Cal State schools) would have been open to him. He doesn’t come from an affluent family (his father was a cop, supposedly), so his course of action is somewhat odd, suggesting that one thing he wanted at age 17 was to put himself in proximity to Washington. At College Park, he established himself as a student council twit. He was a prosecutor for a half-dozen years or so. He’s held public office for about 12 years, about 1/3 of that in local positions he used as stepping stones. Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign was a demonstration that the peer-review functions in the Democratic Party had broken down completely, so you get these pretty-boy candidacies.

  17. Rep. Swalwell is a horse’s petootle.

    A nonentity looking for fame and fortune, he embraces any cause that gets a headline,

    If the Dems run him, they deserve what they will get.

    1. This guy is a nonentity. Apparently he hasn’t read the Constitution. That makes him a great choice for the GOP!

      1. But, anonymous, take note which part he runs under, the Democratic Party whose candidates are fighting to be to the left of one another. You can have pretty boy, I’ll take someone that works for the people rather than the Party.

        1. The lesser known candidates with serious issues worthy of discussion (Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard) are ignored, and the laughable Spewell gets more eyeballs courtesy of his own ignorance. Thus does the system of mass media and even social media reward a fool with more “likes” and further attention.

          1. Kurtz, he’s only getting attention by the righties who want to pretend he represents a majority viewpoint in the democratic party.

            1. What’s Swallwell said that isn’t the modal opinion in and among Democratic pols?

            2. I have been utterly serious in commending Yang and Gabbard for further attention by people of goodwill. I have seen that some unexpected interest has arisen in Yang and Gabbard but the Democratic mass media marches in lockstep behind the favorites.

              The adoring attention given to Kalama’s questioning of Barr yesterday was notable as they cooed and fawned over her all twitter and the media. She’s obviously smart and confident. Those traits go a long way.

              Although i am a Republican, I am free to take an interest in the Democrat primary and i take keen interest in it. Things that seem cranky today may not be so cranky in a decade when the chickens come home to roost. Specifically here I am again referring to the coming impact of increased automation and AI on the workforce. How can Yang be the only candidate who even breathes a word of this?

              I don’t care where the ideas are coming from if they are good I will applaud them. Spewell obviously has no ideas worth discussing and his idiotic remarks should just be ignored.

          2. Kurtz, they are fighting for who can be furthest to the left. I am waiting for one of them to have a nervous breakdown and start living in the past wearing the garb of the KKK.

            1. Tulsi Gabbard has taken a page from some of the most inspiring “isolationists” of American history, starting with our Founder George Washington, who warned of entangling alliances, and against wars, and Eisenhower, who warned of the “military industrial complex”

              I think the pro-war lobby paid for democrat hillarite faction wants nothing to do with her and will suppress her aggressively, if they must. mostly they don’t have to bother. the mass media is doing it for them

              Today I hear on NPR them calling trump an isolationist because he is not a war hawk like Bolton. Really, big piece on this. Isolationism should not be a dirty word! PEACE is a better one.

              1. Kurtz, there is a balance between hard and soft power. If you lean to the softer end eventually you will need a lot of hard power. If you lean too far towards hard power eventually the country becomes weaker because the most important part of our military strength is our economic strength and our economic soft power.

                Bolton is in the right place at the right time. He makes our adversaries think of our hard power. That is good especially after a President (Obama) who had a few good basic thoughts was miserable at carrying them out.

                1. i agree

                  the npr piece kind of suggested there was a weird balance there
                  anything but saying something nice about trump
                  they basically said bolton was a hawk but hes smart and trump is so dumb etc etc

      2. Foolish Democratic candidate remark – blame Republicans!

        He would have great company. Hank Johnson, Rep, D-Ga, thinks Guam will tip over if too many people were on it.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cesSRfXqS1Q

        As to the original post, it reveals the absurdity of identity politics and victim profiteering. There are entire industries devoted to capitalizing off of the victimhood of other people. Vote for us and we’ll save you, without you having to do anything for yourself!

        1. Please victim grow up, she didn’t blame anyone; she said his stupid level is equivalent to a standard GOPer alas you have not attained that level of intelligence.

          1. Actually, it was a reference to tu quoque logical fallacy as well as false equivalence.

Comments are closed.