by Glen Day, ©2020

(Sep. 24, 2020) — Women have served the nation in Congress, the courts, and other public offices for decades. But may a woman run for and hold the office of President or vice-president of the United States? Most people would say “yes,” a woman may run for and be president or vice-president just like a man. Haven’t women run for those offices in the past? The question is ridiculous. But there is a constitutional question regarding a woman’s eligibility that has not been addressed. For whatever reason, no one has raised the issue. The issue is the language used in Article II of the Constitution.

The United States Constitution is written in gender-neutral language. The one exception is found in Article II of the document, which uses male-specific pronouns when describing the office and duties of the president. Does this mean or imply that only a man may be president of the United States? That is the question that needs clarification.

Article II of the U.S. Constitution created the executive branch of government, consisting of the president, vice president, and other executive officers and staffers appointed by the president. Per Article II, the executive power of the federal government is vested in the president.

The writers of the Constitution used male-specific language when describing the position and duties of the president. Not once did they use female-specific language. There are 19 references (20 if the one in the 25th Amendment is counted) regarding the president using the male pronouns of “he” and “his” in Article II. There are no feminine references at all. Some would argue the use of the male pronouns “he” and “his” were not meant to be exclusive to men. It is common in English to use male gender language such as “man” or “mankind” when referring to humanity in general. But the founders were not referring to humanity in general. They were referring to one person; the president, and they used those male pronouns not once or twice but 19 times.

The Constitution does not explicitly state the president must be a man or that a woman shall not be president, but history and those male pronouns in Article II clearly imply just that.

The founders were 18th century men with 18th century worldviews. Those views were that women had no place in political matters. The Constitution was created by (land owning) white men, primarily for the economic, political, and legal benefit of those men. The Constitutional Convention was made up of 55 white men from the 13 states. Women were not involved in the creation of the document. There is no record of any discussions concerning women, their rights, or duties during the Constitutional Convention.

During the early years of United States, women were at best second-class citizens. Women were considered dependent, subservient, and unequal. The tenet of “coverture” existed and meant a married woman was not a person under the law. Her legal being was bound to that of her husband. Husband and wife were legally one entity and the husband was the foremost member of that union. The wife’s separate legal existence just disappeared. It was referred to as “legal death.” Wives could not control their property unless specific provisions were made before marriage. They could not file lawsuits or be sued separately from their husband. They couldn‘t enter into or execute contracts without the involvement of their husband. Husbands were responsible for all aspects of their wife including discipline. Husbands could legally beat their wives. If a woman ran away from her husband and home, she would be considered a thief for stealing the clothes on her back. Women could not vote in most states and could not hold public office. Husbands were required to provide food, shelter, and clothing for their wives. He also became responsible for any debts she acquired prior to the marriage. Single women had it a little better. They could live where they chose, work at jobs not requiring a license or college degree (those jobs belonged to men), enter contracts, sue and be sued and own property. Women were not required (or allowed) to perform the responsibilities required of men such as military service, jury duty, court testimony and posse comitatus.

Married women needed permission from their husbands to do just about anything in the public domain. The “Cult of True Womanhood” was in effect, a belief that women were to be pious, submissive wives and caring mothers, bearing lots of children (important because children often died young in those days) and be concerned only with home and family.

Given the social norms and conditions of that time, a woman as president and commander-in-chief of the military was out of the question, impossible, beyond comprehension. Any man who suggested such a thing could be ridiculed and ridden out of town on a rail. Women needed the care and protection of men. They were physically and emotionally delicate and much too weak to manage such a position. Besides, who will care for the children and household? Politics, managing a country and war were the purview of men, not women. These views continued into 19th and 20th centuries and to some degree even to today.

It was not until 1916 that a woman was allowed to serve in an elected position in the federal government. Jeannette Rankin, a Republican, from Montana (a state that permitted women’s suffrage), was the first woman elected to the House of Representatives. That was 127 years after the Constitution was ratified.

Prior to the ratification of the 19th Amendment, voting rights for women (and men) were a state issue. Some states allowed women to vote; most did not. All states allowed men to vote.

Photo: National Park Service

The 19th Amendment is one sentence long and states:

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”

This Amendment came about because of the lawsuit of Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), the United States Supreme Court ruled that Mrs. Minor did not have a federal constitutional right to vote. The Court upheld a Missouri Court decision that refused to register a woman, Virginia Minor, as a voter because Missouri law allowed only men to vote. Mrs. Minor’s husband filed the lawsuit on her behalf, as the law forbids her, as a married woman, to file it herself. The ruling was based on the Privileges and Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court accepted that Mrs. Minor was (1) a U.S. citizen, even referring to her as a “natural-born Citizen” but found that the U.S. Constitution did not include a right to vote for men or women.

Note: It took 99 years from the Declaration of Independence to clarify, in the Minor Case, that women were in fact U.S. citizens.

Men of the 18th Century created our Constitution and men and women of the 19th and 20th Centuries using the amendment process and case law made improvements. But wish as we might, we cannot put into the Constitution what isn’t there or ignore what is there because it is sexist and no longer politically correct. Those male pronouns are there in Article II and are not going away just because they may be outdated. They cannot be blacked out with a Magic Marker. There are procedures for changing the Constitution that must be followed. In a society governed by law, due process matters. If the law is not followed, human rights lose their foundation and become a target for whatever impulse is in vogue at any time.

Each clause in the Constitution is significant. The Supreme Court will not interpret a new amendment as meant to cancel out an older clause, unless it is clear the new one was adopted for that purpose or a conflict cannot be resolved without revoking the older clause.

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it.” – Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137

If the 19th Amendment or any of the other Amendment had included, “The right of citizens of the United States to hold any public office shall not be denied,” there would be no issue!

Doesn’t the 14th Amendment grant everyone the right to be president? Firstly, the 14th Amendment says nothing about the Office of President. The 14th Amendment passed in 1868 and was created to ensure that former slaves received equal protection under the law. It theoretically granted equality to freed black men and all men in general, but not so much for freed black women and all women in general. To get a clearer picture, one must understand the status of women in the 19th century.

A year after its passage, Myra Bradwell attempted to use the Amendment to become an attorney in Illinois. Mrs. Bradwell, a law school graduate, had passed the bar and challenged the Illinois Supreme Court decision stopping her from practicing law in that state.

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled Mrs. Bradwell was legally “disabled:” As a married woman she had no separate legal existence apart from her husband’s. The case went to the United States Supreme Court and Bradwell argued, like Virginia Minor, that her 14th Amendment rights had been violated. The Supreme Court ruled the Amendment did not require states to allow women into the legal profession. One Justice wrote:

“The paramount destiny and mission of women are to fulfill the noble and benign offices of wife and mother.”

About 100 years later, the U.S. Supreme Court changed its position somewhat. In the 1970s the Court applied the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause to sex discrimination cases, finding it prohibited unequal treatment based on gender. In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled that the Amendment allowed men and women to be treated differently only if it served an “important governmental objective.”

But courts assess cases of sex discrimination under the “intermediate” standard of review rather than the “strict scrutiny” standard that is applied to cases of race discrimination. That means people who have sex discrimination claims need more evidence to win. So, while the 14th Amendment sometimes has been interpreted to benefit women, thus far, it is no guarantee. The Amendment says nothing about who can or cannot be president in Article II of the Constitution.

In 2010 Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated that the 14th Amendment does not prohibit sex discrimination.

On March 22, 1972, the Equal Rights Amendment was approved by the U.S. Senate and sent to the 50 states for ratification. First proposed by the National Woman’s political party in 1923, the Equal Rights Amendment was to provide for the legal equality of the sexes and prohibit discrimination based on sex. About 5 decades later in the late 1960s pushed by U.S. Representative Bella Abzug of New York and feminists Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem, it received the mandatory two-thirds vote from the House of Representatives in October 1971. In March 1972, it was approved by the Senate and sent to the 50 states for ratification.

Hawaii was the first state to ratify what would have been the 27th Amendment, followed by 30 other states. But, during the mid-1970s, feminism support for the Amendment wavered and the Amendment failed to achieve ratification by the required three-fourths of the states.

The Equal Rights Amendment would have probably permitted women to hold the Office of President. It was two sentences long and stated:

“Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. ”The opponents claimed it would not have granted women any more rights than they already had; and its passage would have had negative impact on women, damaging their traditional relationship with men and their role in society. Opponents feared women could be eligible for the draft like men and be compelled to go to war. The critics also claimed the ERA would have voided legislation protecting women in the workplace. Many women feared the ERA would cause them to lose their favored status, in the courts, when it came to alimony, child support and child custody.

Other Relevant Supreme Court Case:

In re Lockwood, 1894
Belva Lockwood filed a lawsuit to force Virginia to allow her to practice law. She was a member of the bar in the District of Columbia. But the Supreme Court found that it was acceptable to read the word “CITIZEN” in the 14th Amendment to include ONLY male citizens.
Hoyt v. Florida, 1961

The Supreme Court heard this case challenging a conviction on the basis that the female defendant faced an all-male jury because jury duty was not mandatory for women. The Supreme Court denied that the state statute exempting women from jury duty was discriminatory, finding that women needed protection from the atmosphere of the courtroom and that it was reasonable to assume women were needed in the home.

Are there other articles or amendments in the Constitution that say women can be president?

The 12th (1803) and 22nd (1951) Amendments deal with the Office of President and are written in gender-neutral language.

The 12TH establishes procedures for electing the president and vice president.

The 22nd deals with term limits for the President and VP. Neither changed any other existing language in Article II.

The 25th Amendment (1967) is written in gender-neutral language. It deals with succession to the office of president by the vice president and others should the President be unable to perform the duties of the office. There is however, one male-specific pronoun, “his”, in the amendment.

So, can a woman legally be president? Those who are constitutional originalists will argue, “No, she cannot.” The Constitution must be lawfully changed to allow women to be President. But those who view the Constitution as a living, breathing, progressive document, containing rights that aren’t articulated within it, will argue this is the 21st century and it’s only fair that women be president, just like men, and to heck with legally changing that troublesome 18th century racist, chauvinist, White men only, Constitution.

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. “So without a way to specify gender-neutrality in a sentence such as “He shall hold his office during the term of four years” did they use “he” as a default?”

    The fact that only men were allowed to hold public office when the U.S. Constitution was written and adopted debunks your premise that they wanted to specify gender-neutrality, so they used “he” because “she” wasn’t allowed. :)

  2. For those folks in Year 2270 previously mentioned herein, who might look way back to this premier P&E website, here is EXHIBIT A on why John Jay would never allow any foreign-thinkers, be they male or female, to be a possible candidate for US President: https://www.teaparty.org/kamala-harris-praises-brilliance-of-black-lives-matter-and-its-marxist-founders-456757/

    Attorney-criminals, Obama and Kamala, are both supporters of a foreign-thinking sedition of John Jay’s Constitutional America by cheer-leading a national Theft Left robbery, and mockery, of everything that made America exceptional on Planet Earth, i.e., they both champion:

    Abortion + BLM = No Lives Matter

    Kamala’s BLM = Kamala’s BlacksLootersMurderers = Kamala’s racism + communism

    Obama II + Kamala,Too = Two reasons why John Jay invented, and states ratified, “natural born Citizen[-President]” on Day One of USA


  3. Looking at a 1790 grammar book, A Concise Introduction to English Grammar by William Francis, there appear to be no gender-neutral, singular, third-person pronouns. Singular, third person pronouns are listed as “he, she, it”.

    Francis states that “Pronouns must always agree in Gender, Number and Person with the Nouns for which they are substituting.”

    So without a way to specify gender-neutrality in a sentence such as “He shall hold his office during the term of four years” did they use “he” as a default?

    Modern writers on grammar say that “he” was used as such a default and only recently has the pronoun “they” begun to be used.


  4. http://legalhistoryblog.blogspot.com/2016/05/john-jay-on-natural-born-citizenship.html + https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/farrand-the-records-of-the-federal-convention-of-1787-vol-1

    After reading up on John Jay recently, there is no way in 1787 that women were considered to be a US President, I believe.

    It’s not that that was a bad thing, it is just a by-product of past thinking.

    While some might get angry at John Jay today, for excluding women from the highest public office (even though he truly loved and admired his wife, Sarah), one has to gauge that anger with thinking about what we are doing today that folks some 250 years from now may look back and say, to us all, as dust citizens, “Why did you do such and such that way in 2020, since that would never be allowed today in 2270.”

    We can either follow the Constitution, or amend it. The “living Constitution” idea is just an expedient attempt at demanding lawlessness.

    But no matter, because the towering Democriminals and the cowering Republicans apparently refuse to follow John Jay’s original ratified invention (“natural born [male] Citizen”) anyway since 08-28-08:

    >Barry Soetoro-Obama II remains ineligible to be a “natural [laws] born Citizen”; an infiltraitor to USA

    >Canada Cruz remains ineligible to be a “natural born [US] Citizen”

    >Joke Biden II remains ineligible to be a US President under the 25th Amendment due to his “a-gaffe-a-minute” mental incapacitation, and previous unindicted criminal behaviors

    >alamaK “Oh, No!” Harris remains ineligible to be a “natural born [male] Citizen” of 1787 and she remains a power-lusting DEFIANT DEVIANT by encouraging We the People to engage in continuous violent “burn it all down” sedition

    Obama II+Biden II+Kamala, Too = mockery of John Jay’s life’s work and selfish abandonment of today’s national security

  5. This is a well-written article. It speaks of facts pertinent to the era.

    Recent political events, including the unconstitutional presidency of aka Obama, and unfettered rioting are weakening the US Constitution as well as endangering the safety and security of innocent citizens. Many influential politicians and the main stream media treat these historical facts with the same ardor as those thugs that seek to overturn statues and monuments erected many decades ago, simply because their new world order thinking is now a free-for-all world.

    I believe that some people think that the US Constitution should contain just one sentence. To wit: “Anything goes.”

    Opinion: The US Constitution is like a bank with compartmentalized safety deposit boxes.
    The US Supreme Court has a pair of keys for each box.
    If the US Supreme Court wants a citizen to enjoy the contents of the box, they will issue a key to the citizen.

    1. “My opinion is that the 19th Amendment, which gives women the political right to vote, also gives women the political rights to hold any federal office, including the presidency, as well as the rights to serve on juries as well as in the military,” — Steven Calabresi

      Amendment XIX:
      “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
      Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

      Activist attorney Steven Calabresi is entitled to his opinion but he is not entitled to unilaterally amend the Constitution so it says what he wants it to say in furtherance of his activist agenda.

      1. Article II, Section I, Clause V

        “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.”

        Are women considered a “person”?

        1. I don’t if the authors of the Constitution considered women a “person” or not. Why don’t you ask them?

          I do know that every time the Constitution is ‘talking’ about a specific “person” it says “he”, never “she”.

        2. As you pointed out above the Framers would not have been able to use a gender-neutral pronoun for the President.

          That makes it interesting that they didn’t use a male terms but the gender-neutral term person for the most important part – eligiblity.

    1. What if it was? Where’s your counter-suggestion, i.e., that a woman can serve as president, replete with legal references to back it up?