User Tag List

Results 1 to 9 of 9

  1. #1
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Exclamation George Washington is Unconstitutional

    I am reviewing this article in my political science class... It's a bit enigmatic.

    "Apparently everyone is up in arms over the fact that John McCain was born in the Panama Canal zone in 1936. Is he a "natural born citizen" eligible to be President under Article II, section 1, clause 4 of the Constitution?

    I have to tell you, frankly, that whether McCain is "natural born" is the least of our worries. If you are truly an originalist, as I am, nobody is eligible to be president today.

    The Constitution provides, as one of the criteria to be eligible to become president, that a person must be a "natural born Citizen" (or, alternatively, in a provision that long ago ceased to apply to any living persons, "a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution") How would you figure out what the phrase "natural born Citizen" means?

    You would try to determine the public meaning of the "natural born Citizen" requirement at the time that the Constitution was adopted.

    I ask you, how can you disagree with that?

    So I busily tried to figure out the original public meaning of the clause, which is a little more complicated than Ed lets on. The Constitution's text actually says, "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."

    Now the key issue for an original meaning originalist, as Sandy Levinson, Jordan Steiker and I pointed out back in 1995, is whether "at the time of adoption of this Constitution" refers only to "Citizen of the United States" or also to the antecedent clause, "a natural born Citizen. We found out that, according to accepted grammatical rules as they existed in 1787, the use of commas marking off the words "or a Citizen of the United States" means that the phrase "at the time of the adoption of this Constitution" refers to both preceding clauses, i.e., both to "natural born Citizen" and to "Citizen of the United States."

    In other words, the original public meaning of the clause says that to be President you either have to have been a natural born Citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, or otherwise a citizen of the United States at the time of adoption, i.e., 1789. That means that persons born after 1789 aren't eligible to be President of the United States. And that includes not only John McCain, but Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama. (In fact, it includes George W. Bush, but everybody knows he wasn't legally elected anyway.)

    With a little research, Levinson,Steiker and I found out that according to the original public meaning of the document, the last constitutional President was Zachary Taylor.

    You might think that this was just a scrivener's error. No so. We discovered that the commas were removed and then added again to successive drafts of the Constitution, so it was clearly something that the framers thought about. We concluded, reluctantly, that the framers clearly meant to say that the Constitution could have constitutional presidents only for a generation. Presumably this was based on a Jeffersonian idea that constitutions should have a natural sunset, at which point, a new constitutional convention should be called.

    But wait-- there's more. The rest of the sentence 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." Now Article VII holds that the Constitution comes into being when nine states ratify, which occured on June 21, 1789, when New Hampshire became the ninth state. But this means that nobody could be a resident within the United States until June 21, 1789, and so nobody could be President until June 21, 1805. And that means that Thomas Jefferson, not George Washington, was the first legal President of the United States.

    Of course, we could get around this by saying that "the United States" actually comes into being on July 4, 1776, the date of the Declaration of Independence (unless you believe in the compact of states theory, under which the states became, as the Declaration says, "free and independent" sovereigns in 1776.). In any case, if the United States comes into being in 1776, nobody would be eligible to be President until 1790, which means that George Washington was ineligible for his first year in office. And because he was ineligible when elected, the first time he was legally elected President was in 1796. Perhaps we could say that the Constitution comes into being in 1775 with Concord and Lexington, when the War of Independence begins. Then Washington would meet the Constitution's residency requirements. (That is, if he took the oath of office after April 19, 1789. In fact, he took the oath of office on April 30, 1789).

    But it's worse than that. Suppose we say that the United States begins in 1775, so that Washington was a resident of the United States for fourteen years before he became President. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean he was a citizen of the United States "at the time of the adoption of this Constitution." If you think the Constitution is a compact of states, which was legally adopted on June 21, 1789 when New Hampshire ratified, then "the time of the adoption of this Constitution" was June 21, 1789. But George Washington's home state of Virginia didn't ratify until June 25th. This means that at "the time of adoption of this Constitution," George Washington was not a citizen of the United States, he was only a citizen of Virginia, and therefore he was ineligible when he took the oath of office. And if he was not a citizen at the time of adoption, he could not be a "natural born Citizen" at the time of adoption either.

    So I am afraid we must conclude that George Washington was unconstitutional.

    And that means of course, that we need to take him off the one dollar bill, tear down the Washington Monument, and rename the nation's capital after somebody else. Jefferson already has a capital city named after him, in my home state of Missouri. How about James Monroe?

    Am I being serious, or is this just a parody of originalism?"

  2. #2
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    That is amusing.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  3. #3
    Your time is gonna come. Oom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    IsfP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    INTp
    Posts
    511

    Default

    I don't think there are enough higher ups in the government that care about tearing down buildings and renaming cities and streets in the name of the constitution. So, the hairsplitting wont matter anyways. It happened too long ago.

    On the other hand, it's interesting!

  4. #4
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post

    Am I being serious, or is this just a parody of originalism?"
    :rolli:

    Its a straw-man parody, and yet an ironic one which illustrates the unbounded sophistry of the advocates of the Constitution as a "living document".

  5. #5
    Head Pigeon Mad Hatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    -1w sp/sx
    Socionics
    IOU Ni
    Posts
    1,028

    Default

    Washington outsmarted all those dimwits by dying before anyone thought it was an issue.
    IN SERIO FATVITAS.

    -τὸ γὰρ γράμμα ἀποκτέννει, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζῳοποιεῖ-

  6. #6
    Senior Member htb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,506

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Its a straw-man parody, and yet an ironic one which illustrates the unbounded sophistry of the advocates of the Constitution as a "living document".
    You're right, of course -- originalism values meaning as understood by the authors of a law, not captious interpretations.

    Besides, everyone knows how lawyers abuse commas.

  7. #7
    Feelin' FiNe speculative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Socionics
    LoL
    Posts
    929

    Default

    Hmm... the Earth was here before the constitution, so isn't the Earth unconstitutional? Therefore, we shouldn't have to worry about global warming, right?
    "How can I be, all I want to be,
    When all I want to do is strip away these stilled constraints
    And crush this charade, shred this sad, masquerade"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGeq5v7L3WM

  8. #8
    Senior Member iamathousandapples's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    495

    Default

    I think it would have been implied that it would be during the time of the adoption for each state, instead of the time for the constitution actually being ratified.

  9. #9
    Senior Member htb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,506

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iamathousandapples View Post
    I think it would have been implied that it would be during the time of the adoption for each state, instead of the time for the constitution actually being ratified.
    You don't even need to reason that far.

    In spite of the claim's absurd disinformation, it does illustrate modern distance from the concept and fact of statehood. The bit about 1789 and 1805 rests on assumptions that the states didn't exist until admitted to the Union, as per the phrase "New Hampshire became the ninth state," whereas the states -- and citizenship "within," them, the word important here -- were manifest by the beginning of the 18th century.

Similar Threads

  1. George Clooney is a Complete Idiot
    By Xann in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-08-2017, 10:35 PM
  2. [NF] George Costanza is an ENFP
    By Lina Rose in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-04-2015, 12:23 PM
  3. [INTJ] George Bush is an INTJ. I'm serious!
    By Elfboy in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 02-07-2011, 12:31 PM
  4. Is Washington Politics A Criminal Enterprise?
    By DiscoBiscuit in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-14-2010, 07:25 PM
  5. George Washington was a delinquent borrower.
    By Brendan in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-19-2010, 10:48 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO