It’s a question that’s rarely asked and on its face seems ridiculous: Are women allowed to become president of the United States? But nearly a century after women gained the constitutional right to vote, many Americans would be surprised to find the answer isn’t simple.

That’s because Article II of the Constitution, which lays out the qualifications and duties of the president, uses the word “he” to describe the holder of that office.

But backers of Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, the former first lady and secretary of state, can breathe a sigh of relief: Constitutional law scholars almost all believe the Constitution does not present a barrier to a female president – though their reasons vary significantly.

Some believe George Washington’s successor lawfully could have been a woman. Others say the 19th Amendment opened that door. And some experts say the Constitution when read as intended still bars women from the nation's top job, but that no judge would rule accordingly.

“The text of the Constitution says ‘he’ and the framers undoubtedly intended that the president would be male,” says Erwin Chemerinsky, who’s long made waves using the issue to attack what he calls “the absurdity of originalism,” which urges adherence to the intent of the Constitution.

Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California at Irvine’s law school, says nowadays “we just accept as a society that a woman could be elected president,” and for that reason – rather than the founders’ intent – “it is unthinkable that any court would hold the election of a woman as president or vice president to be unconstitutional.”

Chemerinsky’s antagonism toward originalists routinely invites pushback, notably in response to a 2013 blog post and again this week in an article published on the popular legal blog the Volokh Conspiracy.

Those who believe the Constitution always has allowed women to be president include law professors John McGinnis of Northwestern University and Christopher Green of the University of Mississippi.

In their favor is the Article II clause that establishes the 35-year age limit and citizenship requirements for presidents, which uses the gender-neutral word “person."

“The requirements to be president begin ‘no person,’” says McGinnis, who notes New Jersey women voted when the Constitution was drafted, meaning further political rights were foreseeable, a case often made by originalists.

“I don’t see any problem at all,” he says. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that prevented a woman from succeeding George Washington” and “when you give the social context, no judge would ever possibly consider it.”

Green says the word “he,” too, may not have been intended by the Founding Fathers to mean a man.

“If we take the original meaning, historically ‘he’ was used to refer to both men and women,” says Green, currently a visiting fellow at Princeton University. “The idea that ‘he’ refers only to men, and that we must say ‘he or she’ to refer to a gender-unspecified person, is new.”

Jack Balkin of Yale Law School says he also believes “the text of the U.S. Constitution presents no obstacle to a president of either sex,” but that “one can reach the same conclusion from the Supreme Court's post-1970 decisions on sex equality.”

And, Balkin points out, many scholars believe the 19th Amendment guaranteed full political rights for women.

That camp includes Steven Calabresi of Northwestern University and legal activist Larry Klayman, an otherwise litigious thorn in the side of the Clintons.

“My opinion is that the 19th Amendment, which gives women the political right to vote, also gives women the political rights to hold any federal office, including the presidency, as well as the rights to serve on juries as well as in the military,” Calabresi says.

“The 19th Amendment means the words 'he' and 'his' are to be read generically wherever they appear in the Constitution. As far as I know, the issue has never been litigated – presumably because the answer is so obvious.”

Klayman, who aggressively pursued the administration of President Bill Clinton in court and Hillary Clinton for her conduct as secretary of state, says the amendment gives her the right to run. In addition to Clinton, Republican businesswoman Carly Fiorina currently is running for president.

Discussion of the Constitution's use of “he” to describe the president likely will remain academic. The last time Hillary Clinton ran for president, losing to Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic primary, an 80-year-old Nevada man sued to keep her off the ballot.

That case, filed in state court, was dismissed.

John Banzhaf, a professor at the George Washington University Law School, says anyone challenging in court the constitutionality of a female president would fail.

Editorial Cartoons on Hillary Clinton View All 258 Images

He points out there wasn't a lawsuit to boot Sarah Palin from the GOP ticket in 2008 or Geraldine Ferraro from the Democratic vice presidential spot in 1984.

“Such a misguided lawyer would probably not have legal standing nor a valid cause of action,” he says. “Same issue came up [with] Obama. Even if there were strong evidence that he was foreign born, it was doubtful that a court action could be successful. Who could show the injury in fact required for legal standing and who or what would be sued on what theory and for what legal relief."