Eleanor Finch
The U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1787, uses the pronoun he when referring to the President of the United States. This is understandable given the historical context, as women could not vote at the time. However, in modern times, with women running for office and even winning the popular vote, there have been calls to update the language in the Constitution to be more inclusive. These efforts face significant political challenges, but proponents argue that raising awareness and sparking conversations about the issue are important first steps.
Explore related products
$9.99 $9.99
What You'll Learn
Gendered language in the Constitution
The U.S. Constitution, which was ratified in 1787, uses the pronoun "he" when referring to the President of the United States. At the time, women could not vote, which explains the exclusion of "she" or "they" as pronouns. However, in modern times, with women running for president and one having won the popular vote, there is a growing movement to change the Constitution's pronouns to be more inclusive.
A petition has been started to address this issue, acknowledging that while changing the Constitution's pronouns would face massive political hurdles, it is important to raise awareness and spark conversations about the topic. The petition specifically mentions the need for acknowledgment of a woman's ability to become president, as the current language is outdated and does not reflect the changing political landscape.
The petition gained traction after a Constitutional Law class at RWU Law, where Professor Jonathan Gutoff used gender-inclusive language when discussing the Constitution. His intentional use of "he – or she" or simply "she" drew attention to the exclusive use of "he" in the original document. This sparked a realization that the language of the Constitution could be perceived as odd and in need of an update, especially in the context of the presidency.
While some may argue that debating pronouns in a time of political and social crisis is frivolous, supporters of the petition emphasize that it is not just a matter of semantics. The language we use shapes our understanding and interpretation of the world around us. Excluding female pronouns from the Constitution can be seen as a denial of women's ability to hold positions of power and a reinforcement of outdated gender norms.
Changing the Constitution's pronouns to be gender-inclusive would be a significant undertaking, requiring a two-thirds vote in both the U.S. House and Senate, as well as approval by three-quarters of state legislatures. Despite the challenges, supporters of the petition believe that it is worth pursuing, even if it does not lead to immediate changes. Raising awareness and stimulating discussions about the issue are important first steps in promoting inclusion and ensuring that the language of the Constitution reflects the values of equality and representation for all.
The Constitution: Limiting Presidential Power
You may want to see also
The number of times the Constitution has been amended
The US Constitution has been amended 27 times. The first 10 amendments, known collectively as the Bill of Rights, were ratified on December 15, 1791. The precedent for the practice of keeping the original text and all prior amendments untouched was set in 1789 when Congress proposed the first several constitutional amendments.
Six amendments approved by Congress and proposed to the states for consideration have not been ratified by the required number of states to become part of the Constitution. Four of these are still pending, as Congress did not set a time limit for their ratification. The other two are no longer pending as the time period set for their ratification expired.
The longest pending amendment that was successfully ratified was the Twenty-second Amendment, which took 3 years and 343 days. The Twenty-seventh Amendment was pending before the states for 202 years and 225 days. The Twenty-sixth Amendment was ratified in the shortest time, 100 days.
Amendments to the Constitution include the Congressional Apportionment Amendment, which would establish a formula for determining the appropriate size of the House of Representatives and the apportionment of representatives among the states following each constitutionally mandated decennial census. Another example is the amendment that limits the number of times a person can be elected to the office of President to twice.
Stephen A. Douglas's Opposition to Lecompton Constitution
You may want to see also
The process of amending the Constitution
The Constitution of the United States has been amended only 27 times since it was drafted in 1787. The authority to amend the Constitution is derived from Article V of the Constitution. The process of amending the Constitution can be initiated by either of two methods. Firstly, Congress can propose an amendment with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Secondly, two-thirds of state legislatures can request Congress to call a Constitutional Convention to propose an amendment. However, a Constitutional Convention has never been held.
Once an amendment is proposed, it is sent to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for processing and publication. The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) within NARA adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it. The OFR also prepares an information package for the states. The amendment becomes part of the Constitution once it is ratified by three-quarters of the states (38 out of 50). The OFR verifies the receipt of the required number of authenticated ratification documents and drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution.
The certification is published in the Federal Register and United States Statutes at Large, serving as official notice to Congress and the nation that the amendment process is complete. The signing of the certification has become a ceremonial function attended by dignitaries, including the President on some occasions. The amendment process is challenging and time-consuming, with several proposed amendments failing to be ratified by the required number of states.
The interpretation and application of the Constitution are influenced by court decisions, particularly those of the Supreme Court, which has the power of judicial review. Judicial review allows the Court to examine the constitutionality of federal and state government actions and interpret the Constitution accordingly. Court decisions in various areas have changed the interpretation of constitutional clauses without amending the text of the Constitution.
Electricity and the Constitution: A Historical Perspective
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The role of the Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution
The Supreme Court plays a crucial role in interpreting the Constitution of the United States. Established by Article III of the Constitution, which vests "the judicial Power of the United States... in one supreme Court", the Supreme Court acts as the final arbiter of constitutional disputes. The Court's power of judicial review, established in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (1803), allows it to examine federal legislation, executive actions, and state laws to determine their constitutionality and strike them down if found to be in violation of the Constitution. This power extends to interpreting the Constitution and explaining its meaning in specific cases, setting precedents that guide future interpretations.
The Supreme Court's interpretations of the Constitution have had a significant impact on how constitutional law has evolved over time. The Court's rulings have often diverged from the original text of the Constitution, adapting it to modern contexts. For example, after the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1869, the Supreme Court ruled that most of its provisions applied not just to the federal government but also to the states, expanding the reach of constitutional protections. The Court has also interpreted the First Amendment to apply to the President, even though it refers specifically to Congress, demonstrating the Court's ability to expand the scope of constitutional rights.
In its role as the interpreter of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the power to shape public policy and protect civil rights and liberties. By striking down laws that violate constitutional provisions, the Court ensures that the government operates within the limits set by the Constitution. The Court's rulings on issues such as governmental regulation of media, criminal justice, and civil rights have had a profound impact on American society, often changing the interpretation of constitutional clauses without formally amending the text.
The Supreme Court's approach to constitutional interpretation has been the subject of debate among legal scholars. Some argue that the Court's interpretations should be based primarily on the original text of the Constitution, while others, like Judge Richard Posner, contend that constitutional law is more about creating rules that are relevant and sensible in the modern context. The Supreme Court's interpretations are influenced by judicial precedents, with the Court relying on its prior decisions to shape future rulings, creating a dynamic and evolving body of constitutional law that may bear little resemblance to the original text.
The Constitution's Solution to the Delegation Dilemma
You may want to see also
The original intent of the Framers of the Constitution
The Framers of the American Constitution were visionaries. They designed a constitution that would not only address the specific challenges facing the nation during their lifetimes but also establish the foundational principles that would sustain and guide the new nation into an uncertain future. The text of the Constitution reflects this vision, defining fundamental freedoms in general terms: freedom of speech, due process of law, free exercise of religion, equal protection of the laws, and prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishment. It sets forth governmental powers in a similar vein, stating that Congress may regulate commerce among the states, the president will take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and the courts are authorized to decide cases and controversies.
The Framers intended the Constitution to endure and be adaptable to changing circumstances. They understood that political majorities may be tempted to enact laws that serve their interests, and that in times of crisis, people may readily sacrifice fundamental freedoms. They also recognized that prejudice, hostility, and intolerance may lead governing majorities to neglect the needs and interests of minorities. To address these concerns, the Framers intended for the courts to play a central role, providing a "legal check" on political majorities. This check on majority rule reflects the Framers' respect for the rights of individuals and minority groups, even if it may result in judicial activism.
The Framers' respect for the rights of individuals and minorities is further demonstrated by their inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution. The First Amendment, for example, protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to peaceful assembly. The Framers also sought to balance state and federal power, with the Constitution granting certain powers to Congress, such as the regulation of commerce among the states, while leaving other powers to the states, such as the conduct of elections for Senators and Representatives.
The Framers also recognized the importance of adaptability and the ability to amend the Constitution over time. They included a process for proposing and ratifying amendments, with twenty-seven amendments having been added to the Constitution since its adoption. The Framers understood that the nation's needs would change over time, and they wanted to ensure that the Constitution could be updated to reflect those changes. This flexibility has allowed the Constitution to remain relevant and effective even as society has evolved.
US Constitution: Rights for Foreign Visitors?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The exact word "man" is used zero times in the US Constitution. However, the pronoun "he" is used when referring to the President of the United States.
The US Constitution was ratified in 1787 when women could not vote. Hence, the pronoun "she" or "they" were not used.
Changing the Constitution's pronouns would require a two-thirds vote in both the US House and Senate, as well as approval by three-quarters of state legislatures.
Yes, a petition was started by a student at RWU Law, who was inspired by her Constitutional Law professor's use of gender-inclusive language when discussing the Constitution.
The reaction to the petition was not enthusiastic, and some considered arguing over pronouns to be a frivolous indulgence. However, the petitioner, Day, argued that it was "not just a matter of semantics."
