-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
The Constitution’s text on the issue states “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.” The problem arises due to a pesky comma. Does the clause “at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” refer only to “a Citizen of the United States” or to both clauses including “a natural born Citizen?” It turns out that according to accepted rules of grammar in 1787, the pesky comma means that “at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” refers to both antecedent clauses.
This means that the President must be a natural born citizen at the time of adoption or a citizen at the time of adoption, 1789. Any person born after 1789 isn’t eligible to be President of the United States. That makes Zachary Taylor the last constitutional President.
You might think that the pesky comma was just a typo (writo?) by an overworked scrivener or maybe a drop of ink that ran a little. But the commas were removed and reinserted numerous times for different drafts of the Constitution, so it was something that was given serious thought by the framers. There’s no backspace when using quill and ink, so you have to decide what to write before you write it.
Wait, it gets better. The rest of the statement reads “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.” Article VII states that “The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution between the states so ratifying the same.” The ninth state was New Hampshire which ratified on June 21, 1788.
This means that nobody would have been a resident until June 21, 1788 and nobody could be President until June 21, 1802. That makes Thomas Jefferson the first legal President of the United States.
We must conclude that, based on originalism, George Washington was unconstitutional.
H/T: Balkinization, Steiker, Levinson, Balkin (pdf).
Mick, good stuff once again. I agree 100% again. Let me also add that the British Nationality Act of 1948 does not allow dual citizenship as well. I agree that both parents [of a Prez candidiate] must be American citizens [NB or naturalized].
A few months ago on my blog, some twit tried to say that 6 previous Presidents [besides Obama] did not have 2 American parents and they couldn’t be eligible either. I debunked him in about 20 seconds because every single President he named had one parent who was not born in the US but became citizens when they married the spouse. The only exception: Chester Arthur, who was not a natural born citizen because no clear record shows he was born in the US. His father also became naturalized AFTER Arthur was born.
I agree with you about McCain. I wrote an article about this on my blog here:
http://realtruthonline.blogspot.com/2008/02/john-mccain-is-not-eligible-to-run-for.html
Could it have anything to do with the fact that Obama sponsored the legislation, or that Obama was Tribe’s student at Harvard? Hmmmm.
It just came full circle. I forgot about all that. The Claire McCaskill stuff. How funny she’s a regular contributor to Fox News. Pit two against each other who have the same constitutional eligibility questions and roll the dice to see who comes out on top. I won’t say nuttin if you wont say nuttin.
All the while Rome is burning.
Here are the list of the cosponsors including Claire McCaskill
Hillary Clinton [D-NY]
Thomas Coburn [R-OK]
Patrick Leahy [D-VT]
Barack Obama [D-IL]
Jim Webb [D-VA]
and if I’m not mistaken it was a legal assistant who first brought up natural born citizen in a paper she wrote in 2006, but was not the first time similar legislation was introduced to change the natural born citizenship clause. Again I could be mistaken.
Larry said
“Frank, I have actually heard that before, that Washington wasn’t technically the FIRST president.
Mick, I agreed 100% with every word of your post. Excellent. Why isn’t Mick a guest blogger? Because Turley sounds like a Hamiltonian constitutionalist [which is really NOT a constitutionist in my opinion]. His guest bloggers all seem to hold the Hamiltonian/Lincolnian view of big central government/no states rights/mercantilism and imperialist concept of America”.
Why? Because Turley is a fraud, as are the many “Constitutional experts” that populate the blogsphere, like Volokh, Kerr, Barnett, Althouse, who fail to educate the American people to the Constitutional Crisis that exists now, and let it fester.
Tribe is another example. At the Resolution 511 hearings he gave the factually correct definition of natural born Citizen as:
“One born WITHIN the TERRITORY and ALLEGIANCE of a nation.”
Well, McCain wasn’t born w/in the territory of the US. Miltary bases are not considered US territory, even by the military, and the PCZ was leased from Panama, not owned by the US. There is some gray area w/ him though, as the 1928 Amendments to the Constitution of Panama (McCain b. 1936) take away the automatic jus soli birthright citizenship that had existed. Also Vattel did make exceptions for the children born of armies of the state while deployed.
Obama, on the other hand, is certainly not eligible by Tribe’s definition, since there is NO evidence that he was born in Hi.(He very well may have been born in Hi., but a pic on a website is proof of NOTHING, it only exists in cyberspace, and any lawyer who says that it is admissible in court is either a liar, or not a very good lawyer)
Further, Obama’s own campaign website, “Fight the Smears”, says that Obama Senior’s Kenyan, and thus British, citizenship, and the British nationality Act of 1948, imparted Obama 2 with British Citizenship. If Obama owed allegiance to Britain at birth how could he be born WITHIN the allegiance of the US? Allegiance is a singular term. If Tribe’s standard is “within the allegiance”, then a natural born Citizen surely cannot be born w/in the allegiance of 2 different countries.
Tribe certainly knows of Obama’s British citizenship at birth, thus he must also know that Obama is not eligible. Could it have anything to do with the fact that Obama sponsored the legislation, or that Obama was Tribe’s student at Harvard? Hmmmm.
What kind of “Expert” on the Constitution knowingly allows the Usurpation of the presidency? A politicized one I guess, however some of the others are supposedly “Federalists”, like Volokh, Kerr and Barnett, lawyers that argue cases before the SCOTUS. What is their motivation for hiding the truth, and not educating the public? Lack of education of the public (and 40 million on food stamps), is the only thing keeping the citizenry from marching on Washington and throwing Obama, and ALL of the TREASONOUS Congresspeople (both sides of the aisle) out on their collective asses.
Have these “Experts” been told to shut up? I would love to write a guest blogpost. The TRUTH sets me free.
Nal, you’re hilarious. Here’s why:
“No. If Jefferson was not legal in his first term and was legal in his second term…”
IF there had been a 2nd term!! We would never know this if there wasn’t a FIRST term!
Then you said:
“That’s my understanding of Prof. Balkin’s statement: “Thomas Jefferson … was the first legal President of the United States.”
“BTW, I appreciate your corrections on the dates I copied from Prof. Balkin’s post.”
And you’re “understanding” of the dates he posted were correct too before I corrected them! That’s my whole point! You just took his word for gospel truth without one second of research and verification! If he was wrong on something so EASY to verify like DATES, god knows how much else he’s wrong on! But you just swallowed it hook, line and sinker without fact-checking! Turley endorses you?????????????
“Evidence that a qualifying phrase is supposed to apply to all antecedents instead of only to the immediately preceding one may be found in the fact that it is separated from the antecedents by a comma.”
Funny, I don’t remember seeing this paragraph in your story. Oh, that’s because it WASN’T. That’s the entire problem with your stupid story Nal, you claimed above it’s not YOUR fault but your sources’ fault [ADMITTING they made errors] THEN you write your article without mentioning ANY of the 3 people IN the actual article as if you are just REPORTING what others had said.
In your article you’re not REPORTING what others have said but you have ADOPTED their stance and wrote the article as if YOU are saying YOU believe their bullshit. I said this above but you keep ignoring it. You can’t blame OTHERS for being a bad or untrustworthy source when you are writing the story in full support of their opinions and ideology as if YOU are passing it off asyour OWN beliefs!
“I won’t be responding to Larry again.”
Because you know you’re DEAD wrong and you know posting this article is a huge embarrassment on your part and you passing it off as satire is complete bullshit, because the 3 people you mention are not being satirical in their writings.
Obviously Turley is not only NOT monitoring stories you nitwits post, but not even looking over the comment threads because he STILL leaves this crappy story up as if it deserves attention.
This story has completely shot to hell the respect I had for Turley.
Frank Mascagni III.
🙂
Going to be busy tomorrow down in Columbus …
Buddha,
There is some great BBQ at 17th Street Bar and Grill in Murphysboro, Illinois. It is the county Seat of Jackson County and home to some great eating. Now, it doesn’t have the New Orleans real estate around it, but it won’t disappoint!
Nal,
I for one am appalled that you didn’t label this as satire. What’s next, linking to The Onion without prefacing it as a fake news site?
raff,
I think you may be confusing George with Thomas. lol
Frank,
I’m good. Thanks for asking. But don’t you believe it about Louisiana bbq! They try. But I know Kansas City. And Louisiana is no Kansas City. Although you have made me start drooling at the mention of my favorite New Orleans restaurant. Oh to live in walking distance again! It’s probably a good thing I don’t though. I’d weight nine million pounds if I did. 🙂
It’s good to see you posting again.
Larry:
This is a lie.
From the linked pdf above:
Evidence that a qualifying phrase is supposed to apply to all antecedents instead of only to the immediately preceding one may be found in the fact that it is separated from the antecedents by a comma.
I won’t be responding to Larry again.
Wasn’t Jefferson the guy who “moved on up to the East side”?
Larry:
No. If Jefferson was not legal in his first term and was legal in his second term, then Jefferson was the first legal President. That’s my understanding of Prof. Balkin’s statement: “Thomas Jefferson … was the first legal President of the United States.”
BTW, I appreciate your corrections on the dates I copied from Prof. Balkin’s post.
In the words of Kate Smith :
Another glaring error on Nal’s part:
“It turns out that according to accepted rules of grammar in 1787, the pesky comma means that “at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” refers to both antecedent clauses.”
Nal leaves this claim completely unsubstantiated. No links, no sources, no evidence this is a true statement. It’s true because you simply SAY it’s true? LOL. Even if he DID provide the link and source of this claim, it doesn’t prove the founders’ were implying that only Presidents Madison thru Taylor were legal and every other President is illegal. OF COURSE they didn’t mean that because that would make the entire Constitution null and void….which incidentally is the description of the inside of Nal’s head.
You’re still ignoring the fact that the Articles of Confederation was our Constitution for the 7 years leading up to the ratification of the Constitution.
Be guided by the wise words of Thumper:
Blouise, how are you? I’ve been following ya’ll without jumping in. I enjoy your comments. Hope you are well. Frank
“Jefferson served two terms. His second term, would have been legal.”
That’s assuming he would have been elected in 1804 without serving the 4 years prior. In reality, Jefferson’s first WAS legal. So was Washington’s 2 terms and Adams’ 1 term.
You didn’t refute one word of me saying that you have adopted the beliefs of the 3 people you link to when you tried distancing yourself from them claiming “blame my source”. Hmmmmm, why did you ignore me on that?
Frank Mascagni III,
Thanks for the info and I, too, will get the book … and glad to see your name and read your words again.
Buddha, how are you? I was with a girl from Shreveport, LA earlier today. Spoke of the best bar-be-que at Podra’s (?). Had bar-be-que shrimp at Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse. Not as good as Pasquale Manale’s but it was good. Hope you are well. Frank
Frank,
Interesting post. I’ll have to add that book to my to read list.
Jefferson served two terms. His second term, would have been legal.