Eleanor Finch
In 2019, Eric Swalwell, a Democratic presidential candidate and congressman from California, tweeted about the absence of the word woman in the United States Constitution. He wrote, 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. However, Swalwell faced backlash and was corrected by Twitter users who pointed out that the word man is also absent from the document. This incident sparked discussions about gender equality and the importance of understanding the Constitution.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Date | 1st May 2019 |
| Speaker | Eric Swalwell |
| Topic | Women's rights |
| Platform | |
| Position | Democratic presidential candidate |
| Statement | "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." |
| Response | Numerous Twitter users pointed out that the word "man" is also absent from the Constitution. |
Explore related products
$9.99 $9.99
What You'll Learn
Eric Swalwell's criticism of the US Constitution
In May 2019, Eric Swalwell, a Democratic presidential candidate and congressman from California, criticised the US Constitution for not including the word "woman". In a tweet, he wrote: "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".
Swalwell's tweet was in support of the Equal Rights Amendment, which aims to guarantee equality of rights under the law regardless of sex. However, he was quickly criticised for his apparent lack of familiarity with the Constitution, as it does not include the word "man" either. Several Twitter users pointed out this oversight, with some mocking the congressman for his error.
Despite the backlash, Swalwell stood by his criticism, arguing that women's rights and representation in the Constitution were important issues. He also pledged to impose a ban on "military-style" weapons and a mandatory gun buyback program if he became president, demonstrating his commitment to addressing issues of gender equality and gun control.
Swalwell's criticism of the Constitution regarding women's representation is part of a larger conversation about women's rights and suffrage in the United States. Since the mid-19th century, women's suffrage supporters have marched, lobbied, and practised civil disobedience to achieve what was considered a radical change in the Constitution—guaranteeing women the right to vote. This culminated in the 19th Amendment, passed in 1920, which granted women the right to vote.
More recently, in 2023, Swalwell criticised the Supreme Court's decision to strike down Roe v. Wade, which he saw as an attack on basic freedoms and a woman's right to make personal healthcare decisions. He stated that the ruling "makes government-mandated pregnancies the law of our country", highlighting his ongoing commitment to protecting women's rights and equality.
The White House Press Secretary: Their Role and Responsibilities
You may want to see also
The absence of the word 'woman' in the Constitution
In 2019, Eric Swalwell, a Democratic presidential candidate and congressman from California, tweeted about his outrage regarding the absence of the word "woman" in the United States Constitution. In his tweet, Swalwell wrote, "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." He further added a hashtag in support of the Equal Rights Amendment.
While Swalwell's sentiment for gender equality is commendable, his statement faced significant backlash as it displayed a lack of familiarity with the Constitution. Many Twitter users were quick to point out that the word "man" is also absent from the document, which instead uses the words "people" and "person." This oversight led to criticism and mockery, with some questioning his political skills and intelligence.
The incident highlights the importance of understanding the nuances of a document as significant as the Constitution before making public statements. It also underscores the ongoing conversation surrounding women's rights and representation in the United States. Despite the passage of the 19th Amendment, which granted women the right to vote, and ongoing efforts to advocate for gender equality, the absence of the word "woman" in the Constitution continues to be a point of contention and a reminder of the historical exclusion of women in legal and political spheres.
While the absence of the word "woman" in the Constitution may be seen as a symbolic omission, it is essential to recognize that the document's language and interpretation have evolved over time to include a more inclusive perspective. Furthermore, the absence of gendered terms such as "man" and "woman" can be viewed as a deliberate choice to avoid reinforcing gender binaries and to ensure that the rights and protections afforded by the Constitution apply equally to all individuals, regardless of gender.
Nevertheless, Swalwell's statement draws attention to the ongoing efforts to achieve gender equality and ensure that women's rights are explicitly recognized and protected under the law. This includes support for the Equal Rights Amendment, which aims to guarantee equality of rights under the law regardless of sex. The discussion sparked by Swalwell's tweet underscores the importance of continuing the dialogue on gender equality and working towards a more inclusive and equitable society.
George Washington's Influence on the US Constitution
You may want to see also
The absence of the word 'man' in the Constitution
In 2019, California Representative Eric Swalwell, a high-profile Democrat and 2020 presidential contender, took to Twitter to express his outrage at the absence of the word "woman" in the United States Constitution. In his tweet, Swalwell wrote, "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."
While Swalwell's sentiment for gender equality is commendable, his statement backfired as it revealed a lack of familiarity with the Constitution. Numerous Twitter users were quick to point out that the word "man" is also absent from the document. This oversight led to criticism and mockery of the congressman, with some questioning his political skills and intelligence.
The absence of the word "man" in the Constitution is indeed noteworthy, especially when considering the historical context and the ongoing struggle for gender equality. The Constitution, as the foundational document of the United States, sets out the nation's fundamental laws and principles. Its language has evolved over time, reflecting the changing social and political landscape of the country.
The omission of gender-specific terms like "man" and "woman" in the Constitution can be viewed as a deliberate choice to avoid reinforcing gender stereotypes and to promote equality. By using gender-neutral terms like "people" and "person," the Constitution aims to ensure that the rights and protections it guarantees apply equally to all individuals, regardless of gender.
However, the absence of "man" in the Constitution also highlights the historical exclusion and marginalization of women in the political and social spheres. The lack of explicit mention of women in the Constitution has been used to deny them equal rights and representation in the past. It was only in 1920, with the ratification of the 19th Amendment, that women were guaranteed the right to vote, marking a significant step towards gender equality.
In conclusion, while the absence of the word "man" in the Constitution may be intentional to promote gender neutrality, it also serves as a reminder of the historical struggle for women's rights and the ongoing journey towards achieving true gender equality in the United States.
Executive Branch: Its Definition and Significance
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Swalwell's 2020 presidential campaign
Eric Swalwell, a 39-year-old California congressman, announced his candidacy for president in the 2020 election on April 8, 2019, on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. He also released a campaign ad announcing his campaign on his social media pages. Swalwell said that ending gun violence would be the primary focus of his campaign. He made a formal announcement at Dublin High School on April 14, 2019.
Swalwell participated in one presidential debate, during which he commented that he was six years old when Joe Biden spoke of passing the torch to a younger generation. Swalwell's polling average never rose above 1%. On July 8, 2019, he withdrew from the race, citing low poll numbers and fundraising issues. At the time, he was at risk of not qualifying for the second set of debates.
Swalwell has co-chaired the House Democratic Steering Committee since 2017. He was a candidate in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries from April to July 2019 before dropping out and endorsing Joe Biden. He was first elected to Congress in 2013 after defeating Democrat Pete Stark, who had represented the district since 1973. During his term in office, Swalwell supported repealing the No Child Left Behind Act and raising the cap on the Social Security payroll tax.
Swalwell has called for greater authenticity from politicians, saying that they should not insult each other publicly and then expect to have friendly relationships "backstage", comparing some politicians' behaviour to a fake, entertainment-focused professional wrestling show. He has also 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.
In May 2019, Swalwell tweeted about the absence of the word "woman" in the US Constitution, calling it an unacceptable exclusion of women. However, he overlooked the fact that the word "man" is also not mentioned in the document. This tweet was an attempt to show support for the Equal Rights Amendment. Several Twitter users mocked him for his apparent lack of familiarity with the Constitution and his attempt to pander to female voters.
The Chief's Entourage: Other Key Party Roles Explored
You may want to see also
Swalwell's promise to impose a ban on military-style weapons
In 2019, Eric Swalwell, a Democratic presidential candidate, came under fire for complaining about the absence of the word "woman" in the United States Constitution. In a tweet, he wrote, "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." However, he overlooked the fact that the word "man" is also absent from the document, which instead uses the words "people" and "person." This led to criticism from Twitter users who pointed out his lack of familiarity with the Constitution.
Now, let's turn our focus to Swalwell's promise to impose a ban on military-style weapons:
Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-CA) has been a strong advocate for gun control and has proposed a ban on military-style semiautomatic assault weapons. He has also suggested a mandatory gun buyback program to remove such weapons from the streets. In an op-ed published in USA Today, Swalwell outlined his plan to buy back these weapons from their owners and prosecute those who refused to comply. He argued that the right to live is the most important right, and removing assault weapons is an investment in averting carnage and heartache.
Swalwell's proposal includes a government program to buy back military-style semiautomatic rifles from their owners. He acknowledged that such a buyback program would come at a significant cost, estimating it could reach $15 billion. However, he believes that this expense is justified to protect American taxpayers from the devastating impact of gun violence. Swalwell's stance on gun control is influenced by his experience as a prosecutor, where he witnessed the damage inflicted by military-style weapons in the hands of killers. He cited the tragic mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School as a horrific example of the carnage that assault weapons can cause.
The ban on military-style weapons, according to Swalwell, would not apply to law enforcement agencies or shooting clubs. He also mentioned that reinstating the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 would not be enough, as it would not address the millions of assault weapons already in possession of civilians. Instead, he advocates for a comprehensive ban on possession and a mandatory buyback program with criminal prosecution for non-compliance. Swalwell's proposal aligns with the stance of the Parkland high school survivors, who have dismissed the moral equivalence often associated with the Second Amendment.
In conclusion, Swalwell's promise to impose a ban on military-style weapons includes a mandatory gun buyback program and criminal prosecution for non-compliance. He justifies this proposal by prioritizing the right to live over the right to bear arms. His experience as a prosecutor and the tragic mass shootings in recent years have influenced his stance on gun control. While acknowledging the potential cost of the buyback program, Swalwell believes that the investment is necessary to protect American lives and reduce gun violence.
Rosenstein, Mueller, and the Constitution: Violation or Not?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Yes, Eric Swalwell, a Democratic presidential candidate and congressman, talked about the absence of the word "woman" in the Constitution.
Swalwell said, "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."
Yes, Swalwell faced backlash for his comments as people pointed out that the word "man" is also not mentioned in the Constitution. He was criticized for his lack of familiarity with the Constitution and for not fact-checking before posting his tweet.
Swalwell's comments were made in the context of supporting women's rights and the Equal Rights Amendment. He had also previously announced that he would only consider women for vice president if he became president.
