Reply #27: I didn't express myself well. [View All]

[Vattel]

I'm not a literalist nor am I naive enough to think that text is all that matters when it comes to statutory or constitutional interpretation. (For example, I don't think that the President's being "Commander and Chief of the Army and Navy" precludes his being commander and chief of the airforce as well.) My views certainly don't commit me to reading the clause in question as only applying to males. Obviously the pronoun "he" can mean "he or she." I don't believe, as you apparently do, that when the rationale behind the text is clear, we should just ignore the text and appeal to the rationale. I think that there ought to be a presumption that the rationale behind a law should be invoked only when the text is vague or ambiguous. Perhaps that presumption is overcome in the case at hand. I'm inclined to think that it is not, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise.