Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

10
  • 23
    Note, that this doesn't mean that new laws or legal opinions should use "he", merely that in interpreting laws, the courts should assume that "he" is generic, unless there is good contextual reason otherwise. Commented Aug 30, 2020 at 20:33
  • 2
    @Fizz "Clearly this interpretation didn't hold water for (granting) women's right to vote for almost 100 years..." No, not so clearly. Poll taxes existed at some points in U. S. history which prohibited voting without paying the relevant tax, and thus men didn't have an unqualified right to vote according to the Constitution. Many issues were left up to the states. Commented Aug 31, 2020 at 4:19
  • 12
    @Fizz Just how did this interpretation not "hold water"? Was there some portion of the Constitution that guaranteed the right to vote, but was held to not refer to woman because of the word "he"? Commented Aug 31, 2020 at 5:02
  • 3
    @Fizz Scalia was co-author of a book of rules for interpreting laws which said (among many other things) that "in the absence of a contrary indication, the masculine includes the feminine (and vice versa) and the singular includes the plural (and vice versa)" (quoted from an adapted summary). Now the conclusion drawn in this answer implies without analysis that there is no "contrary indication" in the constitution, but I don't see any credible argument against that proposition. Commented Aug 31, 2020 at 19:13
  • 2
    @Fizz Yes, Scalia had the absurd notion that the constitution (and its amendments) meant what people thought it meant when they voted for it, not what he (or any other judge) thought was right. Commented Sep 1, 2020 at 11:55