pesky words get in the way
our system
Several of you weighed in on the Alexander Hamilton eligibility to become POTUS. I didn’t mind being told I was wrong, hence my follow on apology yesterday but a couple of careful readers responded on their own. Like so many things about our law, reading the text generates different interpretations.
A retired judge noted “I am not so sure [that he is ineligible]. There are two separate prongs of eligibility: a ‘natural born citizen’ and a ‘citizen of the U.S. at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.’ If the first is construed as requiring native birth, the second is an alternative. Why wouldn’t Hamilton be eligible once he met the age and residency requirements? He was born on Nevis, a subject of the Crown, just like the first seven presidents were subjects. I see nothing in the text that requires anything other than citizenship in 1788–when the Constitution was adopted.”
A nifty site called constitution.congress.gov that I found pursuant to yesterday’s discussion offers the following analysis.
“The Framers appear to have adopted the requirement that citizens be natural born citizens to ensure that the President’s loyalties would lie strictly with the United States. By barring naturalized citizens from the presidency, the requirement of being a natural born citizen, as [Associate] Justice [Joseph] Story explained, protects the United States from those “ambitious foreigners”…Article II, however, provided an exception for foreign-born persons who had immigrated to the colonies prior to the adoption of the Constitution…”
I had never seen this website but I assumed we had some provision allowing the Founding Generation to serve since those same individuals were so determined to put men of the highest quality in office at a time. Many who fought for independence were in fact foreign-born. I am glad readers and this website help provide clarity. No, you can’t trust everything on the web but this appears pretty authoritative.
When controversy arose over the late Senator John McCain’s eligibility for 2000 and a 2008 presidential runs, the issue was that his birth place was the Panama Canal Zone, technically not making him a natural born citizen. We controlled the Canal Zone between the 1903-1979, when the Carter administration returned the Canal itself and associated land to the Republic of Panama. The question of whether the Canal Zone was sovereign American ground became the focus. In the end, no one challenged McCain’s presumption that he was as eligible as 1. over the mandated 35 years of age, 2. having lived here for fourteen years, and 3. a natural born citizen, as the Constitution Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 states.
The aforementioned website specifies Senator McCain, Mexican-born former Michigan Governor (and Senator Mitt Romney’s father) George Romney, and Senator Barry Goldwater, born in Arizona while still a territory rather than a state, as examples of interpreting this specific provision somewhat broadly.
Embedded within law is politics, plain and simple, even if we prefer seeing the law above politics. We won’t likely ever eliminate questions about our laws. This is not, absolutely not an endorsement of partisan applications as that is not my intent; law in the United States, to assure we maintain rule of law, must have as much equity as possible. We do not always meet that abstract standard but we do a whole lot better than other places.
Just today, evidence of China being a place of pernicious whims appeared as the Wall Street Journal blared on the front page “China Targets Economist After Alleged Xi Criticism”. Communicating his personal views in a private chat group, Zhu Hengpeng is the latest rather public warning to the 1.4 billion citizens that the Party won’t brook anything from anyone disloyal to Xi’s power. Demoted from his position in a well-known government think tank, Zhu’s future is completely opaque at this point.
We treasure—and take for granted—open discussion, criticism, endorsement, and freedom of speech. But the Chinese leader and his sycophants increasingly find any criticism personally dangerous as it might lead to broad societal challenge against existing authoritarian policies. Authoritarians across the globe claim popular support but invariably act to prevent anyone questioning their actions; they are men of thin skin.
Our system is far from perfect. Recent Supreme Court cases rile many but it’s still a far better system, built on the Constitution and case law of a quarter millennium, than that of other places. We can always improve to apply law justly to ensure equal treatment under the law but must recall that actions create consequences. Painfully, those consequences can be legal, political, or personal, though we still do better than a place like China or Russia where nothing limits retribution. Such is the pain for any society run by small-minded, insecure individuals who talk of strength but cower and bluster behind their power.
It’s our job to keep our nation from going down that path so we rely on applying our laws to the best of our ability..
So, Alexander Hamilton would have been able to serve as president had he run successfully rather than meeting his end during an 1804 duel in Weehawken, New Jersey. The Framers thought provided a vehicle to serve for the Hamiltons among them, valuing the erudite thoughts of many who immigrated as we struggled through the final years of colonialism and early part of our nationhood. We have always been and likely will be a nation of immigrants as well as laws. Let’s welcome both.
Thank you for reading Actions today and any day. As you see, I genuinely welcome your reactions, corrections, and suggestions. I appreciate your time. Please feel free to circulate this if you find it valuable. Thank you to the subscribers.
It’s cloudy again but relatively warm for a walk. This was a welcome sight while out.
Be well and be safe. FIN
Chun Han Wong and Lingling Wei, “China Targets Economist After Alleged Xi Criticism”, Wall Street Journal, 24 September 2024: A1, A11.
“Constitution Annotated”, constitution.congress.gov, retrieved on 24 September 2024 at https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C5-1/ALDE_00013692/