# Why does the President have to be "a natural born Citizen"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 6, 2002, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-president-have-to-be-a-natural-born-citizen/112713 "2002-06-06T19:04:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![grayhairedmomma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/47e85d/32.png) [@grayhairedmomma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grayhairedmomma)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2002, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-president-have-to-be-a-natural-born-citizen/112713/21 "2002-06-07T18:56:22Z")
> [@](#): > > Well, just how many potential Presidential candidates has the “natural born citizen” requirement deprived us of? Only any person who may be qualified or well suited for the position who - because of this requirement - doesn’t pursue a course which would lead him/her to the presidency. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2002, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-president-have-to-be-a-natural-born-citizen/112713/22 "2002-06-08T14:14:50Z")
As to the “why” of it, I would suggest that the “immigrant ethos” of the United States lay far in the future. The drafters of the Constitution weren’t thinking of creating a “melting pot” kind of country, but were concerned more with tying together the original states into a firmer political system. Suspicion of foreigners would not be inconcsistent with that goal. On a related note, there was also some opposition to the clause governing the admission of new states. Morris didn’t think that new states should be admitted on equality with the original 13, but simply as “provinces” to be governed by the U.S. That position suggests to me that at least some of the framers were approaching the topic with a degree of insularity that is inconsistent with the actual development of the U.S. (And, the fact that Morris ended up on both sides of the issue was simply one more example of a fascinating character.) ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2002, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-president-have-to-be-a-natural-born-citizen/112713/23 "2002-06-08T15:18:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by nicky \* > \*\*If it bars that sausage-fingered Austrian twat from the presidency, then i’m in favor of it. \*\* Are you sure you meant “twat”? twat = slang for vagina twit = silly person ---
**Author:** ![chula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a4c791/32.png) [@chula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chula)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2002, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-president-have-to-be-a-natural-born-citizen/112713/24 "2002-06-08T20:23:08Z")
[This thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=117417&highlight=citizen) answers some questions about the definition of a “natural born citizen.” It doesn’t address why the rule exists though. ---
**Author:** ![BobT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e8cbc/32.png) [@BobT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobT)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2002, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-president-have-to-be-a-natural-born-citizen/112713/25 "2002-06-09T07:00:57Z")
I checked an online version of the debates of the Constitutional Convention and the “natural born citizen” clause was adopted without any debate or rancor. The annotated U.S. Constitution available at [http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/toc.html](http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/toc.html) doesn’t mention any cases involving this clause. It doesn’t seem to be discussed in the Federalist Papers either. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2002, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-president-have-to-be-a-natural-born-citizen/112713/26 "2002-06-09T09:31:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by samclem \* > \*\*Did anyone ever consider that the wording of “natural born citizen” could be interpreted as meaning that “natural birth” is vaginal? Perhaps the framers thought that Caesarian birth was “unnatural” and you had to be born the way most people were.? > > While I am being a bit facetious, I truly wonder what would happen if such a challenge were made in court? > > This is a serious question. Where is my reasoning incorrect? \*\* You’re kidding, right? You think Hamilton, Madison, Washington et al. spent time talking about birthing stories??? (Especially _Washington_ - Mr. Dignity personified!) Hmmm - no, looks like you’re serious. Well, it’s 3 a.m. and I can’t get to sleep, so why not an exegesis on Caesarian birth and the U.S. Constitution. Okay, I doubt that the issue will ever be raised, but if it were, here’s how I’d respond to it. When you’re interpreting a statutory or constitutional provision, you consider the ordinary meaning of the words in the sentence, and also the context of that sentence in the broader text. You also consider the situation at the time the drafters wrote the provision. **Grammatical Meaning** Grammatically, the phrase doesn’t talk about a “natural born person.” It talks about a “natural born _citizen._” If the drafters were worried about Caesarian births, why would they use the adjectival phrase to modify the concept of citizenship, to which it has no connexion that I can see? A Constitution is a political document; what is the political significance of having only vaginal birth individuals as President? By contrast, using “natural born” to modify “citizen” to mean “born a citizen” has an obvious political significance: it means that only individuals who were born citizens of the U.S. can become President. That sort of requirement for public office was common at the time, as shown by the quotations from Farrand and the Act of Settlement, given elsewhere in the thread. So the ordinary grammatical meaning suggests that “natural born citizen” means a person born a citizen. \*\* Other Constitutional Provisions\*\* Let’s move on to consider the phrase in the broader context of the U.S. Constitution. There are two significant points which further bolster the interpretation that “natural born citizen” means “born a citizen,” rather than non-Caesarian birth. First, in Article I, the Constitution sets out the requirements for membership in the [House of Representatives](http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section2) and the [Senate](http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section3). In both cases, the members must be citizens, but they only need to have been citizens for a certain period of time: seven years and nine years, respectively. If you interpret “natural born citizen” in Article II to mean that the President has to have been born a citizen, there is a natural progression of increasingly strict citizenship requirements for candidates: House of Representatives: citizen for seven years; Senate: citizen for nine years; President: citizen all his/her life, with a residency requirement of fourteen years. That progression is also paralleled by similar progressions in the age requirements: House of Representatives: age 25; Senate: age 30; President: age 35. So you can argue that interpreting “natural born citizen” to mean born a citizen is consistent with the approach to the issue for membership in Congress, and shows a nice symmetry. Interpreting the phrase to mean “vaginal birth” doesn’t fit with the other provisions at all. The second point is that the term “naturalisation” is used elsewhere in the Constitution, in a context that establishes it as being in relation to citizenship: [Article I, § 8](http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8) provides (in part) that Congress has the legislative power: > [@](#): > > To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies > throughout the United States. It’s a general rule of interpretation that if a word is used in one part of a statute/constitution with one meaning, it normally should carry that same meaning throughout the document. So if “naturalisation” is used in Article I in connexion with acquiring citizenship, that suggests that its use in Article II should also be in reference to citizenship, not to vaginal birth. **Overall Historical Context** The final general area to consider is the overall context, the legislative history. It’s clear that the drafters were trying to establish a new political system. Tying participation in politics and governance to citizenship has ample precedent; tying it to mode of birth does not. Further, there is some indication, just in the sources we’ve already cited in this thread, that the drafters were concerned with using citizenship as a way to control who could hold public office, so using “natural born” to define citizenship in a particular case carries some logic. On the other hand, unless you can show that the drafters for some reason were worried about Caesarian birth as a bar to holding public office, it’s hard to see why they would put such a provision in the Constitution. And, one final point of context: prior to the invention of general anæsthesia, how common was Caesarian birth at the time of the drafting of the Constitution? My guess is that it would not have been very common at all, and if not, why would the drafters have worried about it? Hmmm - not bad. Maybe I can stick in a few footnoes and get it published somewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2002, 9:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-president-have-to-be-a-natural-born-citizen/112713/27 "2002-06-09T09:41:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BobT \* > \*\*It doesn’t seem to be discussed in the Federalist Papers either. \*\* Although the “natural born citizen” requirement for the President doesn’t seem to be discussed in the _Federalist Papers_, Madison does discuss citizenship as a requirement for the Senators, in a way which casts some light on the contemporary thinking about citizenship requirments generally: > [@](#): > > [Federalist No. 62:](http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa62.htm) > > I. The qualifications proposed for senators, as distinguished from those of representatives, consist in a more advanced age and a longer period of citizenship. A senator must be thirty years of age at least; as a representative must be twenty-five. And the former must have been a citizen nine years; as seven years are required for the latter. The propriety of these distinctions is explained by the nature of the senatorial trust, which, requiring greater extent of information and tability of character, requires at the same time that the senator should have reached a period of life most likely to supply these advantages; and which, participating immediately in transactions with foreign nations, ought to be exercised by none who are not thoroughly weaned from the prepossessions and habits incident to foreign birth and education. The term of nine years appears to be a prudent mediocrity between a total exclusion of adopted citizens, whose merits and talents may claim a share in the public confidence, and an indiscriminate and hasty admission of them, which might create a channel for foreign influence on the national councils. ---
**Author:** ![chula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a4c791/32.png) [@chula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chula)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2002, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-president-have-to-be-a-natural-born-citizen/112713/28 "2002-06-09T19:41:42Z")
**BobT** , there definitely have been Supreme Court cases interpreting this clause. (I’m guessing that’s what you were referring to when you said there was no mention of cases.) I mentioned one on the other thread. It was not clear at the beginning what “natural born citizen” meant. Basically, they decided that Congress can legislate to define the term. ---
**Author:** ![BobT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e8cbc/32.png) [@BobT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobT)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2002, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-president-have-to-be-a-natural-born-citizen/112713/29 "2002-06-09T20:59:31Z")
**chula** can you point me to Supreme Court cases that dealt with presidential eligibility regarding eligibility based on place of birth. I’ve found a lot of cases involving what it means to be a “natural born citizen”, but those all seemed to be 14th Amendment cases. I just don’t think anyone has ever had to go to the Supreme Court to decide this issue specifically for a presidential candidate. ---
**Author:** ![chula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a4c791/32.png) [@chula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chula)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2002, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-president-have-to-be-a-natural-born-citizen/112713/30 "2002-06-10T02:28:24Z")
Oh, you mean specifically dealing with presidential eligibility? No, I can’t imagine that’s happened. But why would it be any different? The term should be given the same meaning no matter which clause it appears in. ---
**Author:** ![BobT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e8cbc/32.png) [@BobT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobT)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2002, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-president-have-to-be-a-natural-born-citizen/112713/31 "2002-06-10T02:35:28Z")
**chula** OK, I see what you’re getting at. The source I read stated that Congress defined “natural born citizen” back in 1790, but the Supreme Court had to clarify that after the passage of the 14th Amendment, which some interpreted to mean that only people born in the U.S. were “natural born citizens”. And the Supreme Court has definitely said that anyone born in the world who is the child of U.S. citizens is a “natural born citizen”. And there were several cases about this. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-president-have-to-be-a-natural-born-citizen/112713.md?page=1)