In a lawsuit that legal scholars call “amusing,” a Reno man is seeking to keep U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton off the Nevada ballot with the argument that the U.S. Constitution prohibits a woman from holding the office.
Douglas Wallace, 80, contends that because the U.S. Constitution relies on the pronouns “he” and “his” in describing the duties of the president, no woman can hold the office.
Wallace argues the constitution would have to be amended to specifically allow a female president and accused Clinton of trying to make an “end run around the Constitution.”
“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,” Wallace wrote in the lawsuit.
That argument is without merit, several legal scholars said Monday.
I know the guy filing the suit is even older than McCain, so he ought to perhaps understand that in the English language, the masculine pronoun can refer to someone whose gender has not been established.
As an undergrad, I remember being taught to use “he” rather then the awkward “he/she” construction to ensure a more elegant prose. That “he” could refer to a person of unknown gender was understood. Why is that so hard for Wallace to understand?