Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) is not known for showcasing his intelligence, and Wednesday was no exception. The high-profile Democrat and 2020 presidential contender took to Twitter to pander to women by complaining that the United States Constitution doesn’t have one use of the word “woman” in it.
“Do you know how many times the word “Woman” is mentioned in the Constitution? Zero,” Swalwell declared.
“That is unacceptable,” he continued. “Women must be equally represented and equally protected,” posted Swalwell, adding a hashtag in support of the Equal Rights Amendment.
Yeah, except the Constitution also doesn’t include the word “man.” So instead of scoring points with women, all Swalwell managed to do was prove that he hasn’t read the Constitution and was too lazy to do a little fact-checking before firing off the tweet.
Swalwell was predictably roasted online for the flagrant error. Columnist Charles C. W. Cooke kindly informed the Democrat, “‘Man’ isn’t in the Constitution either.”
“Do you know how many times the word ‘Man’ is mentioned in the Constitution? Zero,” The Federalist’s Sean Davis mocked. “There’s dumb and then there’s ‘can’t read or use CTRL+F before tweeting’ dumb.”
“This is the most [Eric Swalwell]-y tweet I’ve seen in weeks,” noted The Daily Wire’s Michael Knowles.
“Eric Swalwell is like a cartoony feminist side character in an old sitcom,” popular Twitter user known as “Neontaster” joked.
Another popular political Twitter account poked fun at Swalwell’s pro-abortion and anti-gun fanaticism by noting that “man,” “woman,” and “abortion” are not in the Constitution, but the term “arms” is:
Swalwell’s failed attempt at pandering to women was apparently done to promote the Equal Rights Amendment. However, as highlighted by Jarrett Stepman at The Daily Signal, it’s incorrect to charge that the Constitution doesn’t protect equal rights for women and needs such a resolution as remedy.
“While the Founding Fathers certainly didn’t have modern views about the equality of men and women, that is not to say that they did not believe that women, too, qualified for the basic rights and dignities that the new country would be founded upon,” argued Stepman.
“Whenever the Constitution speaks of ‘privileges guaranteed to individuals,’ women are always included by clear implication,” historian Thomas G. West wrote, pointed out Stepman. “Or are we to assume that the constitutional guarantee of ‘the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus’ means that women (but not men) may be imprisoned but not charged with a specific crime? … Obviously not.”
The conservative columnist also noted that “the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment likely would cause more problems than it would solve, even for the people who have become proponents. It would mean that women would have to be registered for the military draft, for one, and could eliminate laws that benefit women, such as alimony.”