4

While reading this answer, I noticed some odd wording in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution (emphasis mine):

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

Does this mean that, to be eligible for the office of President, one must have been a citizen when the Constitution was signed or otherwise 'adopted', presumably years ago? If not, what does "at the time of the adoption" mean in this context?

Community
  • 1
  • 3
    I think you're missing some parentheses. "No person except (a natural born citizen) or (a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this constitution)... – Kevin Feb 16 '16 at 18:21
  • 5
    corrigible = able to be corrected. negligible = able to be neglected. dirigible = able to be directed. eligible = able to be elected. This understanding of the word "eligible" seems largely forgotten. (This of course does not address the question, but it's relevant to understanding that part of the Constitution.) – Michael Hardy Jun 09 '16 at 23:44
  • The adoption of the Constitution happened at the time when it became ratified by nine states. That, as it turned out, is when New Hampshire ratified in in June 1788. – Michael Hardy Oct 23 '19 at 21:38
  • 1
    I posted an answer that said: "The adoption of the Constitution happened at the time when it became ratified by nine of the thirteen states. That, as it turned out, is when New Hampshire ratified in in June 1788." It was deleted on the grounds that it doens't answer the question. Part of the question was "what does "at the time of the adoption" mean in this context?" How is this not an answer to that? – Michael Hardy Oct 24 '19 at 17:35
  • @MichaelHardy I agree that your answer should not have been deleted d, but it is incomplete. "The time of adoption" is different in different states. Otherwise, people who had been citizens of the other 41 states when those states adopted the constitution would have been ineligible to be president. – phoog Nov 11 '19 at 07:54
  • @MichaelHardy the point you make about "eligible" also explains the otherwise odd-seeming phrase "eligible to the office." An additional point, though, is that "elect" meant "choose" more generally (a sense that persists today in phrases such as "elective course"). – phoog Nov 11 '19 at 08:13
  • @phoog : Your comment about "the other 41 states" is strange. There were at that time only thirteen states, and so only four other states. – Michael Hardy Nov 11 '19 at 16:04
  • @MichaelHardy concentrating on the last four states of the first 13, were they actually part of the US between the constitution's entering into force and their own ratification of it? As to the remaining 37, it seems reasonable to suspect at least that the time of adoption applies to the adoption by each state, though I do not know whether there's any evidence that people thought that at the time. – phoog Nov 11 '19 at 19:39
  • @phoog : Nearly all of the 37 states so far admitted to the Union by act of Congress were carved out of territory already considered to be within the U.S., so they were in places where the Constitution was already in effect. Among the original 13 states, the Constitution was considered in effect in the states that ratified it as soon as there were nine of those. – Michael Hardy Nov 11 '19 at 23:57
  • @Michael Hardy but it wasn't in effect in the four remaining states. Were those states part of the USA during that time? Also the constitutional status of US territories and possessions is far from clear because the constitution does not mention them. Citizens of those territories may be granted US citizenship by statute (e.g. Puerto Rico) or they may not be granted US citizenship at all (e.g. American Samoa, formerly the Philippines). – phoog Nov 12 '19 at 03:36
  • @phoog : The Constitution does tacitly but clearly say something about territories. Article VI, Clause I, called the "engagements clause", says "All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation." That includes the peace treaty of 1783, in which the boundaries of the U.S. were specified, and it includes the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, establishing a government of the territory northwest of the Ohio. – Michael Hardy Nov 12 '19 at 04:16
  • I understand Puerto Rico is considered an "unincorporated" territory, meaning that although it is under U.S. jurisdiction, it is not considered a part of the U.S. But the territory northwest of the Ohio, and the territory that ultimately became Tennessee were within the boundaries established by the treaty of 1783. The territory northwest of the Ohio became five states and part of a sixth. The rest of that sixth state (Minnesota) was within the Louisiana Purchase. – Michael Hardy Nov 12 '19 at 04:29
  • @MichaelHardy but what did US nationality law say about the citizenship of the people born in those territories? Those people certainly did not derive US citizenship from the 14th amendment, which didn't exist yet. As far as I understand it, nationality at birth was controlled by state law at the time, but those territories were not part of any state. – phoog Sep 28 '21 at 12:28

3 Answers3

18

No, it means the following are eligible:

  • Natural born citizens
  • Citizens of the United States, at the time of the adoption of the constitution

The second part was to allow people that were citizens of the US in 1788 (but were obviously not "natural born citizens", since the US didn't exist when they were born) to be eligible for the Presidency.

Check out Alexander Hamilton's draft of this clause:

No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.

john adams
  • 196
  • 2
  • 2
  • 5
    The second clause also allowed the US to have a President before 1823. Before 1823, no "natural born" citizen would meet the Article II requirement that the President had be at least 35 years old. – Just a guy Nov 10 '19 at 20:59
  • 1
    @Justaguy Those born after the declaration of independence were natural born citizens of the US, and the first of these would have become eligible in July 1811. – phoog Nov 11 '19 at 08:10
  • @phoog Duh! You are absolutely correct. Thanks for pointing that out. – Just a guy Nov 11 '19 at 17:57
  • @phoog The US constitution, as we now operate under (plus amendments) did not exist until several years after that point, though. The Articles of Confederation were in effect before then. – zibadawa timmy Nov 11 '19 at 23:16
  • 1
    @zibadawatimmy of course. The point is, however, that natural born citizens of the United States existed before the constitution did, and that if we want to determine when the first natural born citizen of the US reached the age of 35 years, we should take that into account. – phoog Nov 11 '19 at 23:57
  • @phoog I think that would only apply to someone born in the colonies and not someone born overseas who moved there. – Joe W Jul 12 '21 at 15:42
  • @JoeW it may or may not include people born in the colonies, but it certainly includes people born between July 4, 1776 and the adoption of the constitution in 1789. – phoog Sep 28 '21 at 05:46
  • 1
    It actually does come up from time to time in that many parts of the United States joined the nation well after the constitution. While citizenship of new territories has historically been disputed in when it happens, generally anyone in a territory (not a state) is a natural born U.S. Citizen upon entry into the Union and today such individuals would be allowed to run for President, though they have to be a citizen of a state to vote on President. Someone born and raised on Puerto Rico and never lived anywhere for 35 years of his life can be POTUS. – hszmv Sep 28 '21 at 11:58
7

The drafters of the Constitution and Bill of Rights did seem to wield commas like blunt instruments to smash into sentences (see the 2nd Amendment). The intention is clear if the comma after 'United States' is taken out:

"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;"

Dale M
  • 208,266
  • 17
  • 237
  • 460
James Miller
  • 79
  • 1
  • 1
-4

There has never been a definitive legal interpretation of this clause. The Constitution is not self-interpreting. Only the Supreme Court of the US can give a definitive interpretation of what The Constitution says. SCOTUS has never been called on to interpret this issue, so we can only speculate as to what interpretations the words and punctuation have. A credible linguistic argument can be made that under rules of contemporary English, the comma before "at the time of the adoption of this Constitution" gives that restriction scope over both "a natural born citizen" and "a citizen of the United States". There are many schools of legal interpretation just on points of language, setting aside extra-textual considerations. No shool ever has held that the interpretation of the Constitution changes when the language changes. To make the argument that that last modifier has scope over both clauses, you would have to establish that there was such a rule of language at that time. There is ample evidence to the contrary.

user6726
  • 214,947
  • 11
  • 343
  • 576
  • 6
    -1` Every time that Congress has accepted the election of someone born after and certified the results it has legally and officially interpreted this provision Congress is just as much authorized to interpret the Constitution as the Supreme Court is. although a court interpretation would prevail if there was conflict. But there would not be. – David Siegel Jul 12 '21 at 16:52
  • @DavidSiegel I don't see a contradiction between your comment ("a court interpretation would prevail if there was a conflict") and this answer ("only the Supreme Court of the US can give a definitive interpretation of what The Constitution says" (emphasis mine)). This answer usefully summarises some of the principles of interpretation which would apply, notwithstanding that it is highly theoretical, and in doing so helps with understanding the answer to the question, which really comes down to the (by today's standards) confusing comma. – JBentley Oct 15 '21 at 13:36
  • I don't think interpretation of this provision comes down to the comma at all. The "avoid absurd results" rule of construction is much more important here, and would apply even if modern rules about comma usage had been in effect when the constitution was written. The interpretation suggested by the question is simply absurd, and any suggestion that the question is open because the Supreme Court has not passed on the matter is IMO at best misleading. – David Siegel Oct 15 '21 at 18:13