Qualifications for President – Constitution Article 2 §1.5

These days I’m studying Article 2 of the Constitution, which deals with the Executive branch of government. That’s a hot topic these days, and one our current Executive doesn’t seem to understand very well. Last time, I looked at Article 2 §1.4, which put Congress in charge of the electors. The electoral college makes me cranky. I’m glad to move on to Article 2 §1.5, which determines eligibility for the presidency. Spoiler Alert: intelligence isn’t on the list.

Article 2 §1.5

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.

Natural Born President

When the Constitution was written, there weren’t really any “natural born citizens.” Anyone born in America was born in a colony. So they had to include “a citizen at the time of the adoption of this Constitution” as an option or else wait 35 years to elect the first president. But obviously, that option for eligibility was only viable for a few decades.

The requirement that a candidate’s citizenship be by birth rather than naturalization is the one that matters. It’s kind of surprising how much attention it generates.

I imagined the natural citizenship requirement was meant to eliminate foreign agents from getting elected to high office and working against American interests. But it’s unfair to bar roughly 20 million citizens from running on the basis of a Manchurian candidate-type scenario.

If you’ve ever met an immigrant, the idea that they are less invested in the well-being of the country than a native is, frankly, confusing. Most people value what they’ve worked for far more than what they’ve received. And the Framers, of all people, should have respect for the value of civic engagement over birthright. What could be more American than risking everything in search of the opportunity to build a better life from scratch?

Semantics

Not many people challenge the basic fairness of this questionable requirement. But the semantics get a lot of attention. The hypothetical situation of a child born abroad to American parents concerns many people – it’s a common circumstance for military families. Foreign born children of Americans became “natural born citizens” by virtue of the Naturalization Act of 1790. Congress later got hip to the irony of that, because 8 U.S.C. § 1401 re-established them and others as citizens at birth.

So much irony. John McCain was born to American parents in Panama. His presidential runs were unchallenged thanks to the legislation that specifically identified people in his situation as citizens at birth. The presidency of his opponent, Barack Obama, who was born in Hawaii, was plagued by rumors of ineligibility.

Age and Residency

As recent events have proven, age is often unrelated to maturity and intelligence. However, no one seems to have ever taken issue with “35” as a cut off for minimum “adultness.” The odds are that no otherwise ready candidate has ever had to take a pause and wait for their 35th birthday to run. The list of the ten youngest presidents is almost evenly divided among American heroes and nearly-forgottens, so, whatever.

Old age was harder reach in Revolutionary times. So, it’s easy to understand why the Framers didn’t think to put an upper limit on the presidency. But as candidates’ ages move upward, the question of baseline cognitive testing for the U.S. head of state has taken on new relevance.

There’s not much to say about the residency requirement. You should live in the country you’re in charge of.

Relevance Today

The semantics are still muddy for another group of children of American parents – international adoptees. Adoptive families have fought for their rights in the courts. They’ve killed inheritance laws favoring distant, genetically related relatives over immediate relatives by adoption. Under adoption law, an adopted child is to be treated as the “natural issue” of their adoptive parents. At least, that’s what they told me when I adopted.

Before the Child Citizenship Act of 2000, children adopted abroad by American parents were not automatically citizens. Many parents assumed equality under the law and did not pursue naturalization for their children. Now adults, as many as 35,000 of them are still at risk of deportation. The Child Citizenship Act of 2000 grants adopted children of American citizens automatic American citizenship. I though that meant she was a “natural born citizen” just as if she had been born to me while I was in China. However, researching Article 2 §1.5 I couldn’t verify that. A lot of the sources sound like her automatic citizenship was more akin to automatic naturalization.

The tricky thing about living in a common law system is that no legal question is certain until it has been tested in court. Are internationally adopted children natural born or naturalized citizens? The question will remain until one of them decides to run for president. The answer may depend less on the law, and more on whether American xenophobia is rising or in remission at the time of the challenge.

If the electoral college pisses me off, you can imagine how I feel about this.

via GIPHY