[{"command":"add_css","data":[{"rel":"stylesheet","media":"all","href":"\/sites\/default\/files\/css\/css_veuEhhb1658wti0_ZAig66JOyixENU-N9zhjLQSLfOQ.css?delta=0\u0026language=en\u0026theme=heritage_theme\u0026include=eJwrTi1LzdNPzkksLq7Uy8tPSQUAPMsGtA"}]},{"command":"invoke","selector":null,"method":"openEssay","args":["10000081","\n\n\u003Carticle about=\u0022\/constitution\/articles\/2\/essays\/82\/presidential-eligibility\u0022 class=\u0022node node--type-constitution-essay node--promoted node--view-mode-embedded clearfix\u0022\u003E\n  \u003Ch1 class=\u0022title\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan\u003EPresidential Eligibility\u003C\/span\u003E\n\u003C\/h1\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-location\u0022\u003E\n      Article II, Section 1, Clause 5\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-context\u0022\u003E\n      \n            \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ENo 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.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n  \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-body\u0022\u003E\n    \n            \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EThe Constitution imposes three eligibility requirements on the presidency\u2014based on the officeholder\u2019s age, residency, and citizenship\u2014that must be satisfied at the time of taking office. By virtue of the Twelfth Amendment, the qualifications for vice president are the same. The Framers established these qualifications in order to increase the chances of electing a person of patriotism, judgment, and civic virtue.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EFirst, presidents must be thirty-five years of age or older. In contrast, senators must be at least thirty years old, and representatives no less than twenty-five years old. As Justice Joseph Story has noted in his \u003Cem\u003ECommentaries on the Constitution of the United States\u003C\/em\u003E (1833), the \u201ccharacter and talents\u201d of a man in the middle age of life are \u201cfully developed,\u201d and he has had the opportunity \u201cfor public service and for experience in the public councils.\u201d\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003ESecond, the president must have been a \u201cresident\u201d of the United States for fourteen years. By contrast, to be a member of Congress, one must be an \u201cinhabitant\u201d of the state one is representing. During the Constitutional Convention, James Madison contended that \u201cboth [terms] were vague, but the latter [\u2018Inhabitant\u2019] least so in common acceptation, and would not exclude persons absent occasionally for a considerable time on public or private business.\u201d Then as now, inhabitant meant being a legal domiciliary, but resident could mean either a domiciliary or a physical presence. Perhaps the Framers desired a person as president who had actually been present in the United States for the required period and had developed an attachment to and understanding of the country, rather than one who was legally an inhabitant, but who may have lived abroad for most of his life. On the other hand, the distinction may have been one of style rather than substance. As Justice Story later noted, \u201c[b]y \u2018residence,\u2019 in the constitution, is to be understood, not an absolute inhabitancy within the United States during the whole period; but such an inhabitancy, as includes a permanent domicil in the United States.\u201d\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThere is some evidence that the Framers believed the fourteen-year residency requirement could be satisfied cumulatively, rather than consecutively. An earlier version of the clause excluded individuals who have \u201cnot been in the whole, at least fourteen years a resident within\u201d the United States, and historical evidence suggests that deletion of the phrase \u201cin the whole\u201d was not intended to alter the provision\u2019s meaning. This might explain the election of Herbert Hoover, whose successful 1928 campaign for president came less than fourteen years after his return to the United States in 1917. Others may argue that Hoover had simply maintained a United States domicile throughout his tenure abroad.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThe third qualification to be president is that one must be a \u201cnatural born Citizen\u201d (or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution). Although any citizen may become a member of Congress so long as he has held citizenship for the requisite time period, to be president, one must be \u201ca natural born Citizen.\u201d Undivided loyalty to the United States was a prime concern. During the Constitutional Convention, John Jay wrote to George Washington, urging \u201ca strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.\u201d Justice Story later noted that the natural born citizenship requirement \u201ccuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.\u201d\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EUnder the longstanding English common law principle of \u003Cem\u003Ejus soli\u003C\/em\u003E, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, persons born within the United States are plainly \u201cnatural born citizens\u201d eligible to be president.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EBeing born on U.S. soil is not the only way for a person to be entitled to U.S. citizenship at birth, however. A person can be a citizen from birth based on the citizenship of one or both parents\u2014under a British doctrine known as \u003Cem\u003Ejus sanguinis\u003C\/em\u003E. The First Congress codified that doctrine into U.S. law, declaring that \u201cthe children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.\u201d 1 Stat. 104 (1790).\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EFor decades, constitutional scholars have debated whether a person is a natural born citizen eligible to serve as president, so long as he is a U.S. citizen at birth, regardless of the location of his birth. That debate ended as a practical matter in 2008, when the United States Senate unanimously approved a resolution deeming Senator John McCain eligible for the presidency. The resolution noted that \u201cprevious presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President.\u201d S. Res. 511, 110th Cong. (2008). The resolution also added that any other view would be \u201cinconsistent with the purpose and intent of the \u2018natural born Citizen\u2019 clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress\u2019s own statute defining the term \u2018natural born Citizen.\u2019\u201d\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThe Presidential Eligibility Clause does not explicitly cover those who serve merely as acting president (\u003Cem\u003Esee\u003C\/em\u003E Twenty-fifth Amendment), a constitutionally distinct office. Although Congress has imposed by statute, 3 U.S.C. \u00a7 19(e), the same eligibility requirements for service as acting president, that provision may not be required as a constitutional matter.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n  \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--media\u0022\u003E\n            \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--info\u0022\u003E\n              \u003Ch4 class=\u0022con-essay-author--name\u0022\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022http:\/\/www.gibsondunn.com\/lawyers\/jho\u0022\u003EJames C. Ho\u003C\/a\u003E\n                  \u003C\/h4\u003E\n                  \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--job\u0022\u003E\n         Partner, Gibson, Dunn \u0026amp; Crutcher, LLP\n      \u003C\/div\u003E\n            \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-tabs\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cul data-tabs class=\u0022tabs\u0022\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000081-taba\u0022\u003EFurther Reading\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000081-tabb\u0022\u003ECase Law\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000081-tabc\u0022\u003ERelated Essays\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n      \u003C\/ul\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv data-tabs-content\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000081-taba\u0022\u003E\n          \n      \u003Cdiv\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ECharles Gordon, \u003Ci\u003EWho Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma\u003C\/i\u003E, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1 (1968)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EJames C. Ho, \u003Ci\u003EPresident Schwarzenegger\u2014Or At Least Hughes?\u003C\/i\u003E, 7 Green Bag 2d 108 (2004)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EJames C. Ho, \u003Ci\u003EUnnatural Born Citizens and Acting Presidents\u003C\/i\u003E, 17 Const. Comment. 575 (2000)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ERandall Kennedy, \u003Ci\u003EA Natural Aristocracy?\u003C\/i\u003E, 12 Const. Comment. 175 (1995)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EJordan Steiker, Sanford Levinson \u0026amp; J. M. Balkin, \u003Ci\u003ETaking Text and Structure Really Seriously: Constitutional Interpretation and the Crisis of Presidential Eligibility\u003C\/i\u003E, 74 Tex. L. Rev. 237 (1995)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n          \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n        \u003C\/div\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000081-tabb\u0022\u003E\n          \n      \u003Cdiv\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EUnited States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EUnited States \u003Ci\u003Eex rel.\u003C\/i\u003E Guest v. Perkins, 17 F. Supp. 177 (D.D.C. 1936)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n          \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n        \u003C\/div\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000081-tabc\u0022\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000004\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EQualifications for Representatives\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000013\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EQualifications for Senators\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000082\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EPresidential Succession\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000164\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EElectoral College\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000166\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003ECitizenship\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000186\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EPresidential Succession\u003C\/a\u003E\n                  \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n\u003C\/article\u003E\n"]}]