-9

While reading the constitution I came across this:

“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.”

No person alive today was a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution that is eligible for president. All the presidents in my lifetime have been unlawfully same as the president the took us off the gold standard. Nobody should have the power to veto what the people want. Why has this never been interpreted by SCOTUS?

David Siegel
  • 113,558
  • 10
  • 204
  • 404
DonutConnection
  • 39
  • 3
  • 2
    Did you see the “or” in that passage? It’s either be naturally born or be a citizen at that point in time. – George White Sep 29 '21 at 07:49
  • 2
    Related: https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/7194/are-only-citizens-at-the-time-of-the-adoption-of-this-constitution-eligible-to/67637#67637 (see answer by user6726 and its comment by David Siegel) –  Sep 29 '21 at 08:23
  • 1
    To the close voters, this question isn't actually about the correct interpretation of the constitution; rather, it is asking about procedure: why hasn't the supreme court ruled on the meaning of the passage in question? – phoog Sep 29 '21 at 13:04
  • I agree with Phoog, this is not a duplicate, @motosubatsu which is why I have posted an answer. – David Siegel Sep 29 '21 at 16:07
  • The fact that “at the time of the adoption of this contusion” was added and wasn’t added to Congress or the senate means that the found father wanted extra emphasis on this right? – DonutConnection Sep 29 '21 at 23:27
  • It does not answer my question. That other post was about interpretation not why there hasn’t been one. – DonutConnection Sep 30 '21 at 01:12
  • @DonutConnection No, the fact that it was added for President and not Congress is a sign that there were people alive in 1789 who had been US citizens for more than nine years, but there were no adults who were US citizens from birth. – cpast Sep 30 '21 at 01:41
  • @George White yes I seen to or in the stantence it’s either natural born (In the UNITED STATES, which was just created) or a citizen of the United States of America, at the time of the adoption of the constitution – DonutConnection Oct 02 '21 at 03:56
  • @Rock Ape . I seen that post and they moved it to private chat in order to try to bury the thread. I post my answers in there and they downvote me so I can’t make comments other places or ask a new question. – DonutConnection Oct 06 '21 at 15:13
  • @cpast right 9 year citizens and they didn’t want anybody other than those born in DC, it’s possessions and territories as President. But that did not include the 13 states.

    Congress could be elected though? Even thought they were only 9 year citizens?

     – DonutConnection Oct 06 '21 at 15:32

3 Answers3

6

Why has this never been interpreted by SCOTUS?

It has never been interpreted by any court, because the interpretation you're advocating is nonsensical, and nobody has ever tried to advance it in any court. Therefore, no court has had an opportunity to rule on it.

Congress, however, has (at least implicitly) interpreted this clause to mean that all natural-born citizens are eligible to be president if they also fulfill the other requirements, regardless of when they were born, so that is the prevailing interpretation unless someone manages to challenge the interpretation either before congress or in a court. If such a challenge is made then there will be an explicit ruling.

phoog
  • 37,212
  • 5
  • 79
  • 127
  • Nobody but the Supreme Court can say how it should be interpreted. Congress has no authority to interpreter it to what they choose it to be. – DonutConnection Sep 29 '21 at 23:07
  • 6
    @DonutConnection That's just wrong. Every government official in the United States has sworn an oath to support the Constitution. Every government official has an independent obligation to interpret it when needed. The Supreme Court's interpretations are definitive on most issues (some issues are entirely outside the authority of the courts), but that doesn't mean only the Supreme Court can interpret it. – cpast Sep 29 '21 at 23:46
  • Ok you are right but it needs a Supreme Court interpretation in order that Congress or whoever else can’t just interpret it anyway they want – DonutConnection Oct 06 '21 at 15:15
  • 3
    @DonutConnection nobody seriously disputes the interpretation. It would be a waste of the supreme court justices' time and taxpayers' money for them or for any other court to consider it. – phoog Oct 06 '21 at 16:26
  • 3
    @DonutConnection "it needs a Supreme Court interpretation in order that Congress or whoever else can’t just interpret it anyway they want" This is incorrect. Any U.S. court has a right and a duty to interpret the constitution in any case presented to it that raises a constitutional issue. The U.S. Supreme Court can't interpret the constitution at all until at least two other courts have done so in most cases, and often more. – ohwilleke Oct 07 '21 at 04:49
4

Why has this never been interpreted by SCOTUS?

The Supreme Court deals with actual cases (Article Three of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia).

If no case has been brought to the court, then there is no interpretation from the court.

Nobody should have the power to veto what the people want.

If Gowron (as president) and the Great Pumpkin (as vice president) were actually elected by the people, a case could be brought forward to clarify that being created in the United States is not the same as being born (and thus a natural citizen of) the United States.

Under such circumstances (all safeguards having failed), the case would probably be accepted. Otherwise the case would be rejected being hypothetical or frivious.

Mark Johnson
  • 5,634
  • 1
  • 14
  • 31
  • The courts deal with cases and controversies. Not just cases – DonutConnection Sep 29 '21 at 23:08
  • 1
    @DonutConnection They deal with live cases and controversities. Which means that there need to be parties that brought it to court. The judicative can't just start proceedings on its own, only dismiss them for the bringing side did not do its duties. – Trish Sep 29 '21 at 23:31
  • @DonutConnection, DaleM, phoog I am aware of that, that is why I wrote mainly in the original text - that was removed by someone else. – Mark Johnson Sep 30 '21 at 03:05
  • @Mark Johnson They removed the word mainly ? I feel like my posts are being censored. Are they altering your posts? Where was the mainly word at? Which sentence? – DonutConnection Oct 06 '21 at 15:18
  • @DonutConnection you can see the edit history by clicking the link with the text "edited Sep 30 at 4:30" (or whatever time is indicated). – phoog Oct 06 '21 at 16:28
3

US Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court, can only rule on an issue when it comes up as part of a "case or controversy". This is from Article III, Section 2, Clause 1.

This clause is why US Federal courts do not give advisory opinions, as some state courts and some courts in other countries do. They also do not reach out to decide issues not presented in the form of a case.

To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever suggested the interpretation described in the question as part of an actual court case, so no US federal court would have ever ruled on it.

If such an interpretation had been presented, the general rule of construction would be applied that a statute (including the Constitution ) will not be interpreted so as to reach an absurd result, when a reasonable interpretation is available. A reading which made no one eligible to be elected President who was born after the US Constitution was adopted would be absurd, and so would never be adopted by any court.

However, Congress effectively interprets this provision every time it certifies the results of a Presidential election, because it is one of Congress's duties to certify only eligible people as having been elected. This means Congress must consider the Constitutional rule on who is eligible, and interpret and apply it.

David Siegel
  • 113,558
  • 10
  • 204
  • 404
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Dale M Oct 01 '21 at 00:26
  • Why was my post closed and who closed it? – DonutConnection Oct 02 '21 at 03:49
  • @DonutConnection I closed your most recent post as a duplicate of this post. If you want to discuss where that was proper or not, you may ask a question on law.meta.se (https://law.meta.stackexchange.com/) – David Siegel Oct 02 '21 at 03:53
  • It was not a duplicate . This post was asking why there hasn’t been an interpretation. The recent post was what can we do to get an interpretation – DonutConnection Oct 06 '21 at 15:20
  • @David Siegel how am I supposed to ask a question there when you people downvoted me so much I have no reputation to post there. I gave better answers which have not gotten any rebuttal and you moved it to private chat where nobody can see them unless they join the chat. – DonutConnection Oct 06 '21 at 15:23
  • @David Siegel I am now of opinion that since the articles of confederation mentioned a perpetual union and the constitution did not that the drafters of the constitution wanted the people to draft an even better constitution once the citizens alive at the time were no longer alive Therefore this wording should be raised in any case that it applies including tax cases – DonutConnection Oct 06 '21 at 15:26
  • The founding fathers knew they had no authority to bind anybody other than themselves. – DonutConnection Oct 06 '21 at 15:28
  • @DonutConnection Essay #40 of The Federalist says: "... forms ought to give way to substance; that a rigid adherence in such cases to the former, would render nominal and nugatory the transcendent and precious right of the people to 'abolish or alter their governments as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness,' ... it is therefore essential that such changes be instituted by some INFORMAL AND UNAUTHORIZED PROPOSITIONS, made by some patriotic and respectable citizen or number of citizens. [...] – David Siegel Oct 06 '21 at 15:43
  • @DonutConnection note the The Federalist no 40 is dealing with the replacement of the articles of confederation by the proposed Constitution. – David Siegel Oct 06 '21 at 15:45
  • 1
    @DonutConnection In Essay #15 of The Federalist Hamilton writes: "I have unfolded to you a complication of dangers to which you would be exposed, should you permit that sacred knot which binds the people of America together be severed or dissolved...." It is clear that he and the other members of the convention intended the new constitution to be lasting, subject only to such changes ad might be made by way of amendments, and there was no plan for a total replacement at some future date. [...] – David Siegel Oct 06 '21 at 15:56
  • @DonutConnection nor would such a plan (for a later total revision of teh Constitution) have been executed by the sort of back door your question suggests. Indeed there is no need, given the provision for a new convention as a method of amendment (never used so far). – David Siegel Oct 06 '21 at 15:57
  • 4
    @DonutConnection it's fairly well documented that at least some of the people involved in producing the constitution thought that it ought to have a fairly short life span on the order of a few decades. Crucially, however, the document itself does not include any expiration date, and the idea that the qualifications for the presidency are an implied expiration date is not tenable. Furthermore, the idea that people born after the adoption of the constitution should be ineligible is not compatible with the 35-year minimum age. There's just no serious controversy about the interpretation. – phoog Oct 06 '21 at 16:35
  • @phoog it says born or was a citizen at the time of adoption of the constitution. There were citizens that were 35 at the time of the adoption. I don’t see what you say the idea the qualifications are an implied expiration date is not tenable. They had no authority to bind anybody other that themselves. The Constitution only applied to those existing at the time of the adoption of the constitution. – DonutConnection Oct 08 '21 at 06:57
  • All men are created with certain inalienable rights among them life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The to secure those right governments were created…with the consent of the governed. – DonutConnection Oct 08 '21 at 07:03
  • How did anybody consent after those people died? – DonutConnection Oct 08 '21 at 07:04
  • @DonutConnection perhaps reversing the order in which the qualifications are stated will clarify. The citizenship qualification is met if the candidate is one of two things, either (A) a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution, or (B) a natural-born citizen. Those people who were 35 or older when the constitution was adopted were not natural born citizens of the US because the US didn't yet exist when they were born. Without (A), nobody would have been eligible before the election of 1824. – phoog Oct 08 '21 at 07:20
  • 1
    @DonutConnection the consent of the governed is expressed collectively through the political process. If enough people want to change the government, they can, either by enacting laws, by amending the constitution, or by overthrowing the government through revolution, the last being a particularly risky way of expressing a lack of consent since lack of success may result in being put to death. This is a risk with which the country's founders were intimately familiar. The idea that individuals enter into a contract with the government is perhaps better thought of as a bit of fiction. – phoog Oct 08 '21 at 07:24