I must admit I don't know that much about the United States constitution as I was not born or educated in this country. But one thing I do know for sure is that neither Arnold Schwartzenegger nor I could ever be president by reason of birth. That rule makes no sense to me whatsoever. Why was that requirement put into the constitution? Is it not possible that a citizen born in another country might make a very good president? A better one perhaps than some of the native born ones we have had to date?
Another part of the constitution that I'm not so sure about, and this is where I could use your help, is whether or not a woman could legally become president. Perhaps not. And here is why I think that. At the time the constitution was drafted by those illustrious white gentlemen, women were not considered to be 'persons'. I believe that at some later date the constitution was amended to graciously allow women to vote. That was a nice gesture on the part of the white gentlemen in congress, even though by doing so nothing changed. We continued to elect white gentlemen to the office of president.
Now, as far as electing a white woman to the highest office in the land, I don't believe there is provision in the constitution for this. I may be wrong. Was the constitution ever amended to allow a white woman to be so elected? If, in fact, it was not, then wouldn't an amendment be required to permit this?
I would appreciate the input of other Gather members who may be more politically literate than I to set this matter straight.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 45
Now that I know you're talking constitutional interpretation, I'll leave my own rant unwritten. But I'll be checking back here to see what debates spring!
Nova Summer
There is actually no wording in the Constitution the EXCLUDES a woman from being President. The issue is not dealt with in that document. The exclusions given are for other reasons, ergo..
"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."
Since a woman, is as you noted, now defined as a "person" she may serve if elected and if none of the other exclusions apply.
And, LOL, I wouldn't call some the men elected to the Presidency 'gentlemen'. Not by a long shot.
Pretty simple it says "person" .
Seriously, though, women were certainly considered "persons" under the Constitution, and have always been counted in the Census. Slaves were also counted as "persons", but for apportionment (of Congressional Representatives and taxes) purposes, they were discounted by 40%. "Indians" were not taxed, were not counted, but were still recognized as persons.
I commend you on the reverse-psychology "trick" title for your article.
You are learning.......and you are getting very good at what you do.
Now, as to your question------
No, I do not believe there is anything in the U.S. Constitution
(or any other official government document)
that forbids a white woman, or a black woman, or a yellow woman,
or a red woman, or a brown woman, or even a purple woman
from being elected to the highest office in the land.
(Condoleezza Rice and Madelyn Albright are two excellent
examples of this country's acceptance of high-powered women
in extremely important governmental positions).
Having said this--------
I would echo the sentiments of your first comment
by vickie f. that it is not a matter of gender,
but rather a matter of personality
that may inevitably exclude the only
current female presidential candidate
from possessing the title of
"Mrs. President".
Once again, great article, Thomas!!
I understand that there is nothing in the constitution that expressly forbids a woman from becoming president. I also understand that there is nothing that forbids a woman from voting, nevertheless women still could not vote. So my question remains - what law or practice was it that prevented women from voting, and what action was it that changed that? And secondly, if women, at one time, could not vote, they certainly, at the same time, could not become president. Therefore what action, by congress or the supreme court, was taken to allow women to become president? If no such action was ever taken then I presume a woman still cannot become president. Your comments would be appreciated.
I may not agree with the fact that ppl from other countries cant be presidents here, but I wouldnt travel to England, France, Asia , Australia, Mexico, or any where else to try to become their leader. It makes sense that you have to be a citzen to become president.
1. No, it is not obvious that a woman can be president. Somebody had to do something to allow them to vote. What, if anything, was done to allow them to be president?
2. There are qualified citizens who cannot become president because they were not BORN here.
But, my initial point is that they were "persons" in the Constitution. The clause dealing with qualifications for President only refers to "persons" and does not exclude women (or Slaves or Indians, for that matter). The 19th Amendment made it uniform that women could not be excluded from voting, because the exclusion was widespread. An amendment clarifying the qualifications to become President was/is not necessary because there is nothing excluding it.
Very interesting question. Thanks.
There have been many laws that redefined women as persons. Remember, our Constitution is not about citizens, it is about persons. It's an important distinction.
I once read about the reason that the President must be a natural born citizen. I'll get back to you on that.
The above quote is from Wikipedia. Just type in 'natural born citizen' to get at the facts about why it is in the constitution.
VOTING: Constitution did not mandate, so it was up to the states, towns, etc. We then ratified an Amendment to prevent states (etc) from excluding women. It became a federal law prohibiting the states from excluding.
Remember, that in a very real way, we NEVER have a national election for President. Each state chooses its ELECTORS who then go to the electoral college. That is probably the key reason that the Constitution didn't get down into the trenches of election law and who gets to vote and those issues.
QUALIFICATIONS TO BE PRESIDENT: That was obviously a subject tha the federal govt had to make from the start; you couldn't have each state setting its own requirements. The Constitution did not exclude women. Therefore, it was not necessary to amend it.
(Disclaimer: I am not a constitutional law expert, and I have not really thought about this issue in any depth before. I read your question, reviewed the text and some history websites, and am putting together what I think is the reason. I could be way off! I thought you raised a good question in the sense that it made me think and evaluate something I hadn't considered before.)
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
(Ratified 20 August 1920)
Before 1920, women were allowed to vote by some States and localities, and not by others. Likewise, some States allowed women to run for and hold public office, while others did not, based on State constitutions. There was nothing in the US Constitution that forbade women from voting or holding office, but no "rights" either.
Re last sentence - In a true democracy of over 300 million people the chances of a wife succeeding her husband as president are close to zero, as would be a son succeeding his father. The US is not a democracy, it is an oligarchy (rule by a clique).
While there are plenty of familial examples, those examples are small in the scheme of things. I don't think it is oligarchical - the rest of us COULD run and the barriers to entry are not exceedingly high. And, IF Sen. Clinton does win, I think the confluence of the two Bushes and two Clintons is just a coincidence - I do not think it means that our democratic system has failed or that our voters have lost their collective imagination.
I'm not worried about the US becoming a dynastical system.
There is no provision in the constitution prohibiting woman from being president. The language does reference a "he" but just as a woman can be a postman she can be president. So no amendment was necessary.
I too question the need today for persons to be born in the United States. However, during the recent Iraq situation and comments by various persons who would willingly give up their civil rights such as Habeas Corpus, protection from unwarranted search and seizure and others, I now believe that a tradition or heritage of just what the freedom of the United States represents and why many persons have died for these rights, is imperative in the person assuming the role of president. These appreciations don't seem to be inherent in many first generation Americans, let alone in those born in a foreign country.
Also, if your country of birth is Canada, your heritage is little different than our own, but if you were from Saudi Arabia, it would have little in common with American tradition and the rules must be the same for all.
Noting the discussion above, in regard to persons, the original women were persons but a black was only counted for the census as 3/5 of a person. So there was some distinction between a person and simply a person, if that make any sense at all!
Finally, the United States is not a pure democracy and never was intended to be. It is a republic with a representational democracy form of government. Many of our current laws evolved out of consolidating the differences between the member states.
When Hillary Clinton called him on his offensive comments, he said she was running around acting like she's "Annie Oakly" waving her six shooter- Now that is a sexist comment.
I'm forgetting.... how many groups has the Uniter insulted now?
There is women, hunters, gun owners, "typical white people", anyone that served in politics before him, anyone older 60, and mayors or governors of a small states or towns.
Is there anyone left to vote for him?