Slate's Bizbox
jurisprudence: The law, lawyers, and the court.

The Constitution and the CandidatesWhat would the framers say?

By Akhil Reed Amar
Posted Monday, Feb. 4, 2008, at 1:25 PM ET
John Adams

Our next president's first act will be to solemnly swear to uphold the Constitution. But what does that document say about who that person should be?

Of course, all the top candidates are formally eligible. The Constitution demands only that our next president must have been born a citizen, must be at least 35 years old, and must have resided in the United States for 14 or more years. But if we probe these rules and ask not merely what the text says but why, interesting differences among the contenders snap into focus.

Favorite Sons: For example, why was the Constitution's age rule necessary? In the framers' world, who could ever have enjoyed enough name recognition to be elected president at the age of, say, 32?

As they drafted and debated the Constitution, the founders knew that the sitting English prime minister was William Pitt, the younger, whose father (William Pitt, the elder) had headed the ministry before the American Revolution. Young Pitt had entered Parliament at age 21 and had become prime minister at age 24. America's Constitution aimed to prevent something similar from happening here. By 35, a favorite son of a famous father would have his own record on which he could be judged. Conversely, meritorious low-born men would have time to rise through the ranks. George Washington was the first electoral college's unanimous choice not only because of his model military service but also because he embodied an anti-dynastic ideal. Washington became father of his country precisely because he was not father to any child who might seek to succeed him.

Of the first five men entrusted with the presidency, only one had any (acknowledged) sons. That was John Adams, and his namesake, John Quincy Adams, himself became America's sixth president—but only after proving his own mettle and winning the top slot long after his 35th birthday and a quarter-century after his father's tenure. Q's presidential résumé included an eight-year stint as America's top diplomat under a president (Monroe) wholly unconnected to the elder Adams. With Q and A, we can see the sensible limits of the framers' anti-dynastic ideology and the nice balance they struck. A permanent disqualification of favorite sons would have gone too far, forever preventing Americans from tapping someone whom they reasonably viewed as the nation's ablest leader, such as a mature Q. Beyond the rule of 35, the Constitution trusted the political process to resist dynastic overreach, and early presidential discourse sharply focused the public's attention on dynastic issues. So have various father-son moments over the centuries.

Natural-Born Citizens: The Constitution's rule that the president be "a natural born citizen" focuses not on where a person became a citizen, but when. To be eligible, one must be born a citizen rather than naturalized at some later date. At the founding, a special constitutional clause provided that even those who had not been citizens at birth could nevertheless become president, if they were citizens circa 1787. Thus, Alexander Hamilton, born in the West Indies, was clearly eligible. All those already in America in 1787 could be trusted; but the framers fretted that an Old World earl or duke might someday sail across the Atlantic with a boatload of gold and bribe his way into the presidency. (Rumor had it that George III's second son, the Bishop of Osnaburgh, would soon head this way.) Thus, the "natural-born" clause's main target of concern was not immigrants generally, but wealthy European aristocrats who might wreak havoc in an America lacking strong campaign finance laws.

Fourteen Years: The Constitution's final requirement—14 years of U.S. residence—also focused on transoceanic travel and made clear that loyal Americans who had spent years (or even decades) abroad were nonetheless welcome to pursue the American presidency. After Washington, four of the nation's next five presidents could point to extended foreign residence—all as key U.S. diplomats. The framers expected that their presidents—who would take oaths to "preserve, protect, and defend" the American system—would need a deep understanding of the dangerous world outside America. Until Lincoln, every elected president save one (Polk) had served as a military general and/or a top diplomat; and all but four (Washington, Madison, Polk, and Taylor) had served in the Senate, which played a special role in treaty making and ambassadorial appointments.

Class, Religion, Race, Sex: Also notable is what the Constitution's eligibility rules do not say. Almost every early state constitution imposed property requirements for candidates running for governor, yet the Constitution omitted any comparable barrier for the presidency. In dramatic contrast to most early state constitutions, which required governors to meet various religious tests, the framers omitted any such test for presidents and in another part of the Constitution went even further, banning religious tests for all federal posts.

Later amendments have further opened the door of eligibility. Nothing at the founding required that state election laws give equal treatment to black or female voters or office seekers. The Constitution's 15th and 19th amendments corrected these founding lapses, promising blacks and women the rights to vote and to be voted for as full political equals.

The Current Candidates: Even as the Constitution says that our generation must choose for ourselves, the document and its history prompt us to focus on certain things—such as the dangers of dynasty, the significance of international experience, and the shining ideal of political equality for all groups. How do each of today's top four contenders appear when seen through this constitutional prism?

VIEW AS SINGLE PAGE
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Akhil Reed Amar is a professor of law and political science at Yale University, and the author of America's Constitution: A Biography.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Comments from the Fray

Correct me if I'm wrong, but both Obama and Clinton would have been eligible to run for president even before the 15th/19th amendments, even though they would have been denied the vote. (In Obama's case, I'm assuming that, having been transported back in time, he would materialize as a freeman.) Although not a practical possibility, there is at least one actual example: Victoria Woodhull ran for president long before women had the right to vote (1872).

--alewbail

(To reply, click here)

One thing the Framers had in mind with the Native Born and 14 year requirement was the unhappy history of Poland, where the king was elected for life by the nobility. During the 18th century, foreigners Augustus II and III of Saxony won the throne through a combination of bribery and military pressure. Augustus III's principal rival for the throne, Stanislas Lesczinski (sp?), was the son in law of Louis XV and had lived much of his adult life in France as an exile from Augustus II. The birth and residency restrictions were intended to keep the UK, France or any other foreign power from importing a puppet president.

The requirement that the Electoral College meet separately in each state on the same day instead of at one location was also based on European experience. The election of the Polish king, the Holy Roman Emperor or the Pope was often a buzzard's banquet of foreign diplomats distributing bribes, threats and promises to the electors. Dispersal at 13 or more locations was supposed to make this more difficult, although the problem would arise whenever the election was thrown into the House.

--jack cerf

(To reply, click here)

(2/5)