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 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
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
  • 237,717
  • 18
  • 273
  • 546
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
  • 217,973
  • 11
  • 354
  • 589