# Constitutionality of a female President **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 18, 2008, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-a-female-president/449734 "2008-05-18T06:36:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2008, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-a-female-president/449734/21 "2008-05-19T14:37:19Z")
[QUOTE=Wendell Wagner] Rhythmdvl writes: \> . . . v) say hello to Opal . . . A strict interpretation of the Opal clause (which says that only the third item in a list may mention Opal) would say that you have failed to apply it appropriately. The fact that you’ve done so would say that you’re part of the living tree school rather than an originalist. What do have to say for yourself? [/QUOTE] I’m sorry, but “may” implies permissive use, and does not expressly rule out alternate placement. That it is traditionally third is convention only. Furthermore, _Opelist Paper No. 17_, discusses the origin of the rule as intending to prevent two-item lists from appearing absurd. This indicates that when circumstances are such that the author wishes to avoid absurdity, a “Hi Opel” or similar comment is warranted. Granted, _Opelist Paper No. 12_ notes that once a list grows beyond two items the need for its inclusion is superfluous. However, as the impression of need is inherently subjective, this supports my contention that inclusion should be based on the stylistic inclinations of the author. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2008, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-a-female-president/449734/22 "2008-05-19T14:49:53Z")
[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase] What do you base your contention on? Do you have any grounds for saying that in English law man only meant males? Do you believe that if a law about murder read, “he shall be punished” that women could get off scot-free? [/QUOTE] Excellent point, but given the mores and restrictions at the time, I don’t think merely asserting that this particular usage was intended to be universal is sufficient. Would you take it a step deeper and differentiate between usages where it is universal (e.g., your example) and where it is not? For example, I believe some domestic violence, inheritance, and rape (statutory and otherwise) legislation was gender-specific in their terms, but not necessarily expressly so. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2008, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-a-female-president/449734/23 "2008-05-19T15:13:09Z")
> [@](#): > > Even so, I think if you tried to pull this as a trap on a knowledgeable law scholar who was an originalist you’d wind up a tiny spot on the floor. No, I wouldn’t collapse in the face of his superior attitude alone. I’d tell him if he back up his lofty assertions with some actual facts he’d better step away. > [@](#): > > What do you base your contention on? Do you have any grounds for saying that in English law man only meant males? Do you believe that if a law about murder read, “he shall be punished” that women could get off scot-free? > > Have you even checked a dictionary? Say, the OED? Have you ever checked a history? Say, of the United States? If the law has always been that men and women are equal, then why didn’t women have the right to vote before 1920? Stop pretending that the standards of 2007 retroactively apply to history. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2008, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-a-female-president/449734/24 "2008-05-19T15:29:57Z")
[QUOTE=Little Nemo] If the law has always been that men and women are equal, then why didn’t women have the right to vote before 1920? Stop pretending that the standards of 2007 retroactively apply to history. [/QUOTE] The voting laws didn’t apply evenly to all MEN before 1860. I love hearing about how “Blacks got the vote in 1860.” WRONG! Oprah Winfrey would not have been able to vote in 1860, along with lots of other Blacks. ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2008, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-a-female-president/449734/25 "2008-05-19T15:53:13Z")
[QUOTE=Derleth] Women hold, or have held, just about every other position in the government save the President and Vice President. There are women acknowledged to be in the line of succession as we speak. There is no way to twist the language of the Constitution to allow the current reality but disallow a female President, and the only people I’ve ever heard of who would bar women from holding office are the Dominionists and similar who would throw over the Constitution entirely. [/QUOTE] First off I don’t disagree with your sentiment, but the mere fact that women hold positions in the line of succession does not mean they qualify for the office of President. Citizens who are not natural-born have also held such positions, and whenever I’ve heard it discussed, it was said such persons would simply be skipped in succession if the matter arose. Granted I’ve never heard the argument proposed that any woman be skipped simply because of her gender. I’m simply saying your logic is not complete. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2008, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-a-female-president/449734/26 "2008-05-19T16:00:47Z")
My argument would be that the only part of the Constitution listing qualifications for the POTUS is: > [@](#): > > 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. This does not refer to gender, and was interpreted before 1920 to allow women to stand for office as President, even though they could not vote. Notably, the 19th Amendment only refers to the right to vote, not the right to hold office. Presumably this was because women could already hold federal office (such as member of Congress, senator, etc.), even though they could not vote. The use of “he” does not limit to males in other parts of the Constitution, e.g., Article IV Section 2: > [@](#): > > A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime. Does that mean that women cannot be extradited from one state to another, because of the “he fled”? It would be wonderful if no woman fleeing justice had thought of this argument, if it was at all likely to work! ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2008, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-a-female-president/449734/27 "2008-05-19T17:00:21Z")
[QUOTE=Giles] My argument would be that the only part of the Constitution listing qualifications for the POTUS is: > [@](#): > > 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. This does not refer to gender, and was interpreted before 1920 to allow women to stand for office as President, even though they could not vote. Notably, the 19th Amendment only refers to the right to vote, not the right to hold office. Presumably this was because women could already hold federal office (such as member of Congress, senator, etc.), even though they could not vote. [/QUOTE] Seconded. I was ready to present the “qualifications to be President” clause (specifically, Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 4), noting its use of “person”, as I read this post. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2008, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-a-female-president/449734/28 "2008-05-19T17:33:52Z")
Again, these are interesting opinions but they’re not legal precedents. Has anyone ever challenged an issue like female qualification to hold a seat in Congress or a woman being immune from extradiction and gotten a court ruling which officially stated that the use of masculine pronouns in the Constitution are gender neutral? ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2008, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-a-female-president/449734/29 "2008-05-19T18:50:43Z")
[QUOTE=OldGuy] First off I don’t disagree with your sentiment, but the mere fact that women hold positions in the line of succession does not mean they qualify for the office of President. Citizens who are not natural-born have also held such positions, and whenever I’ve heard it discussed, it was said such persons would simply be skipped in succession if the matter arose. Granted I’ve never heard the argument proposed that any woman be skipped simply because of her gender. I’m simply saying your logic is not complete. [/QUOTE] I said _acknowledged_ in the line of succession. There have been people who held posts which would normally be in the line of succession who themselves were not in the line because they were disqualified. Madeline Albright is an example of this: If worst came to worst, everyone knew she would have been skipped. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2008, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-a-female-president/449734/30 "2008-05-19T20:49:37Z")
[QUOTE=Little Nemo] No, I wouldn’t collapse in the face of his superior attitude alone. I’d tell him if he back up his lofty assertions with some actual facts he’d better step away.Have you ever checked a history? Say, of the United States? If the law has always been that men and women are equal, then why didn’t women have the right to vote before 1920? Stop pretending that the standards of 2007 retroactively apply to history. [/QUOTE] Well, they did, in some places. Where they didn’t, it was because the law specifically limited the vote to males. Women didn’t have the right to vote NATIONWIDE before 1920, because any given state was free to refuse to permit women to vote. And some did. But as early as 1776, for example, New Jersey permitted women to vote – as long they were worth at least 50 pounds, cash or land. It wasn’t until 1790 that the law was changed to exclude women. Women were permitted the vote in western territories until the passage of the Edmunds-Tucker Act in ~1890ish. The law had never been that men and women were equal. No one claimed that. The law was, however, that unless otherwise specified, a law referring to “he” or “him” also included “she” or “her.” Men and women weren’t equal before the law as a whole, though, because many laws DID make that distinction. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2008, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-a-female-president/449734/31 "2008-05-20T02:39:15Z")
> [@](#): > > The law had never been that men and women were equal. No one claimed that. The law was, however, that unless otherwise specified, a law referring to “he” or “him” also included “she” or “her.” Men and women weren’t equal before the law as a whole, though, because many laws DID make that distinction. So are you saying that while laws were passed back in the 19th century prohibiting women from voting, everyone agreed that a woman could be President? Because my guess would be the exact opposite - that back then everybody thought the idea of a woman being elected to the Presidency was so outlandish that there was no need to specifically prohibit it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2008, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-a-female-president/449734/32 "2008-05-20T07:29:21Z")
[QUOTE=Little Nemo] So are you saying that while laws were passed back in the 19th century prohibiting women from voting, everyone agreed that a woman could be President? Because my guess would be the exact opposite - that back then everybody thought the idea of a woman being elected to the Presidency was so outlandish that there was no need to specifically prohibit it. [/QUOTE] Which, by the very nature of how we choose the President, pretty much guaranteed that no woman would be elected President. So I think that while people would have granted the idea that sure, technically, a woman could be legally president, it was an absurd idea that would never happen… much like electing, as they might have politely said, a Negro president. Technically legal, but never going to happen. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2008, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-a-female-president/449734/33 "2008-05-20T13:57:16Z")
How do you reconcile their supposed belief that a woman is theoretically capable of being President with their demonstrated belief that a woman is incapable of voting for a President? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2008, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-a-female-president/449734/34 "2008-05-20T14:00:44Z")
[QUOTE=Little Nemo] How do you reconcile their supposed belief that a woman is theoretically capable of being President with their demonstrated belief that a woman is incapable of voting for a President? [/QUOTE] We have analogous dichotomies in place right now. For example, there’s no legal bar for a Downs Syndrome adult, barely functioning, from being elected President. But we don’t see any need to make it illegal, because we’re quite confident that no such person could ever be elected. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2008, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-a-female-president/449734/35 "2008-05-20T14:03:19Z")
[QUOTE=Little Nemo] How do you reconcile their supposed belief that a woman is theoretically capable of being President with their demonstrated belief that a woman is incapable of voting for a President? [/QUOTE] Interestingly, for most of the 19th century, the British had a worse problem. They had laws that prevented women from doing pretty much anything, including voting, holding any office, or owning property when married. However, the head of state was a woman. So they had to believe that a woman was incapable of doing anything, unless she happened to be the queen. I’m not sure how they reconciled these beliefs. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-a-female-president/449734.md?page=1)