The thing about words when it comes to common law in the US, UK and British commonwealth (where common law is still acknowledged), is that they still have those original meanings. So a woman in court needing to express herself as someone free would address herself as a man. To address herself as a woman denotes her as belonging to a man, thus having no rights. I believe therein lies the trick with the word man as it's being used in the constitution. If you want to play their game, then you use their words and apply them as needed. They aren't interested in you getting offended at having to call yourself a man. People is the collective word, so you can't call yourself that, then person refers more to the 'paper' self, so a company can also be a person. An entity on paper has no rights in law, only in the legal system, where the rules can be changed at their leisure.
Still, it's all a separation of us and them. As you say, the letter of the law and not the spirit.
Thanks for the added clarity here! And you're right, the law does have an interesting approach to language, but ultimately " letter of the law and not the spirit" is the most vital issue from which others spring.
I could write another 10,000 words on language-reflecting-thought, evolving meanings, and the power of labels, but at least I touched on it here: Why No One Reads What You Write: A Masterclass In Communication (linking it in case anyone is following our discussion and wants to dig deeper.)
As always, thanks for a great chat! 🙏