Is it really unacceptable that “Woman” is not mentioned even once in the US Constitution?

Posted by  $  Solver 2 months, 2 weeks ago to Humor
43 comments | Share | Flag

(D) presidential hopeful Eric Swalwell seems to think so.

But, “Do you know how many times the word ‘Man’ is mentioned in the Constitution? Zero,”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/eric...

(This topic just has to be posted under Humor)
SOURCE URL: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/eric-swalwell-constitution-woman


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Abaco 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    He is so stupid that it actually makes me angry. I have a physical reaction to the stuff he says. Dear gawd...how in the hell does a guy like this have a job, let alone be an elected official.

    I'm sorry...But, sometimes stupidity is downright offensive it's so deep...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  exceller 2 months, 2 weeks ago
      I share your anger.

      I stopped being incredulous about things like this.

      This guy is not the only one. I believe about 80% of Congress has the same IQ and intelligence level as he is exhibiting. Except that we become aware only when they want to make waves and open their mouth.

      It infects both Chambers: think of Mazie Hirono, and she is a Senator. Or Gillibrand.

      O'Rourke is right there, not to mention the newly minted House members.

      It is so numbing you just give up.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Abaco 2 months, 2 weeks ago
        I occasionally meet with my state assembly member. He's so dumb, yet is voting on things that directly impact my children. It's intolerable...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  exceller 2 months, 2 weeks ago
          True: when you are not good for any kind of job, become a politician.

          Is there any other "field" you can get away with the extent of ignorance and stupidity? And malice?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  gharkness 2 months, 2 weeks ago
            I can't help but believe that this is why we don't see Trey Gowdy any more in the halls of Congress. He just couldn't become dumb enough to be "one of them," and the stink ran him off. That's a shame, though, because he was one of the few that might actually improve things.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  exceller 2 months, 2 weeks ago
              You may have a point.

              I had a friend who ran for Congress and unseated a long time incumbent.

              He was a professor at the University and became bored by the daily routine so he thought becoming a Rep would be fun.

              He was a very bright guy who was an intellectual partner.

              He was elected and his dumbing down commenced. He was doing things we (friends and family) were unable to grasp and find justification for. He and a few others went in front of the cameras to demonstrate their "commitment" to the people which came across as something a 5 yo would do. His wife was petrified at the juvenile actions.

              He was a Republican, btw, meaning that the disease affects both sides. I remember his words when he arrived in DC, full of ambition to "do good". Quckly he realized that was not why he was there. He was told "you do this for yourself", not for your constituents.

              He went through a fundamental transformation while in DC: divorced her wife of two decades and married a girl younger than his daughter.

              So much for ethics and substance.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  gharkness 2 months, 2 weeks ago
                It's a shame to see it up close, but at least you know, from your own experience. It's hard to believe that people would change so fundamentally for the worse, and yet....apparently they do.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  mminnick 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    Perhaps each member of Congress should be sent a copy of the Constitution. Perhaps the Heritage Foundation could deliver them in person to make sure the staff didn't intercept them.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  blarman 2 months, 2 weeks ago
      We need people to be able to pass a test on the Constitution and Declaration as part of being eligible to run for office in the first place. Its way too late once they are in office.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by LibertyBelle 2 months, 2 weeks ago
        No; we can't have the government set up standards of what people should know for office. It sounds good at first, but once they get started on that, there would be thought control; and it wouldn't take very long. But having citizens present questions on how much they know during a political campaign, that might be acceptable.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  blarman 2 months, 2 weeks ago
          I was only half-serious.

          I totally support the idea about having citizens question potential candidates about the Constitution. Of course, that requires that people actually learn about the Constitution - a job that public education has shied away from since the 60's. It used to be in the Founders' days that the Constitution (and many a political discussion) was held in the local churches and town halls. Now churches are hounded by the IRS for engaging in "political" speech and the only "town hall" meetings we have are meet-and-greets. Its a sad state of affairs for our nation.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by LibertyBelle 2 months, 2 weeks ago
            What we need in the first place is to abolish public education. Government-financed & government-operated education necessarily leads to government thought control; from my second-grade teacher,who (in school year 1959-1960) nagged me about going to church and threatened me if I didn't start going,until modern times, when school has been pushing the book Heather Has Two Mommies, and pushing en-
            vironmentalism and stuff about "climate change"; from one side or the other, either way it is wrong, and the solution is to have a separation of education and state, like the separation of church and state.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  blarman 2 months, 2 weeks ago
              You're always going to have teachers pushing a bias of one kind or another. The important thing is to know what kind of bias the school pushes and to have options. I totally support the ability of parents to pick a parochial school if that's what they want. And I don't necessarily pan on all government educators, as I have seen a couple of really good ones (even principals) though now that I think about it they were great in spite of the system, not because of it...

              Anyway, I think we just need more options. More options to help kids learn according to their abilities especially. I think too many bright kids get held to the lowest common denominator in public schools. And there are definitely some kids which are so disruptive in public schools that they shouldn't be there at all (kindergartners are the worst, high schoolers next).
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by LibertyBelle 2 months, 1 week ago
                It is true that teachers would be able to push bias of one sort or another, even under a lassez-faire system, but the difference is, that in cases of a parent's principled opposition, the parent would be free to boycott that particular school, (or organization). It would be a case of please the customers, or go out of business.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  mminnick 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    There were several tweets yesterday and today about this topic. The people tweeting pointed out that Man or Men was never mentioned in the Constitution either. The terms used were Person, People and Citizen. No gender attached.
    Note: All of the tweets I saw were from WOMEN.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  25n56il4 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    Doesn't 'We The People" cover women? I always thought it did? Do you think we need to rewrite it? Really. I am not THAT sensitive!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 2 months, 2 weeks ago
      If he had said that in my presents, I would have asked...So, dummy, your saying women are not people?...Hmmm
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  25n56il4 2 months, 2 weeks ago
        It does tend to make one think so OUC! Of course, in some areas we aren't! When I was preparing for college, a local university interviewed us. My wish was Corporate Law. The people doing the testing advised me this wasn't going to happen in our lifetime! I chose an exciting path, got lucky and managed to really learn more than I could have in any university.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Stormi 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    As a female, I get sick of the Dems and their pandering to race, gender, and sexual persuasion.
    My dad taught me to go with facts, and be prepared to compete in the business world on the basis of ability, not some gender difference. That means, when someone want s my vote, show me the programs, reasons, and fiscal data. Don't try to manipulate me, Mr. Swahwell, that is demeaning and it makde me angry.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    This is a wonderful problem to have. We have someone indignant that women's rights isn't in the US Constitution. The whole idea of a government based on Enlightenment ideas probably seemed like a pipe dream at the time. Only now, after it's become the model for governments everywhere, do we have the luxury to be indignant that it didn't bring liberty to more people sooner.

    Then we have people indignant that Swalwell's indignant because the Constitution didn't mention the word man and therefore didn't codify the lack of liberty that existed at the time.

    I suspect even Mary Wollstoncraft, one of the founders of feminism, would have been confused by this discussion if she observed it at the time when the US Constitution was ratified. Not only did the US succeed, their second attempt at a constitution succeeds, they become a regional power, then a superpower and model for nation states everywhere. Americans 200 years (after 1788) will struggled to understand why they didn't do the "obvious" thing and include ideas from A Vindication of the Rights of Women in the Constitution.

    Equality seems so obvious to me, even I can wonder why they didn't just go the next obvious step in the 18th Century. We live in an amazing time for liberty.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    Getting upset over that?! When is somebody going to get some sense?--Yes, women were oppressed in the past; but the 14th, and the 19th Amendments were passed, and women can be equal before the law. We need to get out of this identity politics, and have recognition of individual rights. (And, by the way, I am a woman).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jdg 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    The only real relevance of the Equal Rights Amendment to today's world, IMO, is that the courts ought to interpret its failure as meaning the states would never have ratified the 14th if it had been intended to include gender equality -- and therefore it does not.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  2 months, 2 weeks ago
    Anyone notice that “woman” does not appear anywhere in the Communist Manifesto yet “man” appears quite a number of times.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  allosaur 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    Me dino getting tired of all the empty-headed squeaks uttered by these libtarded swamp rats out to awe
    the voting bobble-heads who prop up these clueless clowns as some kinda ooo-weee great thinkers.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  25n56il4 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    I can hardly wait to get up in the morning and see what new person is announcing for the Presidency. This is a first in my lifetime! In the past some credentials were required. At least a brain was necessary. Not so anymore evidently.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo