According to the U.S. Constitution, "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; 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 let's look at the three requirements: (a) citizenship requirement It should be noted that George Washington was not a natural born citizen as he could not be born a citizen of a non-existent country. He, and his first few successors, were in fact born British subjects. However, the framers realized that until decades later, the first few Presidents could not be natural born citizens. That is why they inserted the phrase "or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" so that the first few Presidents could qualify. (b) age requirement Washington was 57 when he took office so he attained the age of 35. (c) residency requirement George Washington took office on April 30, 1789. 14 years before this would be about April 30, 1775. But the U.S. didn't come into existence until July 4, 1776 at the earliest. So literally speaking, Washington was only a resident within the United States for 13 years as he could not be resident of a non-existent country before 1776. Therefore until July 4, 1790, he did not attain the 14 years residency of the United States. Now of course people will argue that the framers meant "and been fourteen years a resident within territory that would become the United States". But if one were to literally interpret the wording of the Constitution, then George Washington illegally held the Presidency until July 4, 1790.
Here's the question people should be asking... There is currently debate concerning the precise definition of "natural born citizen." While it is clear that anyone born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, it is not clear that children born outside the U.S. to U.S. citizen parent(s) are natural born citizens and thus eligible for the Presidency. Several main candidates have sought the office who were born outside the United States (e.g., George Romney was born in Mexico to U.S. parents, Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona while it was still a U.S. territory, and John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone to U.S. parents). Barry Goldwater's case among these three is unique in that although he was born outside the United States, Arizona was later admitted as a state. None of these candidates was elected, so the issue was never fully addressed.
You're misinterpreting the "citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption" clause. I have always believed that this clause was added so that founding father types NOT born in the 13 original colonies (Alexander Hamilton, a native of the West Indies, being the most prominent) could be eligible for the office of the president. Though some will argue that the "natural born" citizen clause keeps him out because it is exclusive of residency. Not doing so (or doing so) would be a deliberate swipe at Hamilton who was one of the leading drafters & campaigners for the Constitution. Anyway - the key part that you're missing about is that it WAS possible to be a natural born citizen of the US in the 18th century - provided you were born in the continental US even before it became the US, at least that's the way the interpreted by the founders.
Since nobody could have been a "legal" president by these definitions, I find the topic null and void. The framers of the Constitution were still alive, and had they felt him an "illegal" president, they would have stopped it. The real question, that I've wondered all my life is this: I was born to a US family, but in a German hospital. My dad was in the military and was serving on a US Air Force base in Germany at that time. I was born a US Citizen and a German citizen. Not that I ever would, but could I run for president?
I think we can give Washington a pass based on that little "Winning our independence against the British empire" thing he did.
It's not really meant to be a serious topic, more just something I discovered when I read the Constitution literally and saw that if read word for word that neither Washington (nor anyone else) could have qualified as President until July 4, 1890. Obviously the framers meant to say, "fourteen years a resident within territory that would become the United States" since they wrote it and if they didn't mean that then as you say no one would have qualified. Still it does show that they were a bit sloppy in writing it. They should have either wrote explicitly what I wrote above or else they could have reduced the residency requirement to 12 years to ensure Washington and most others would have qualified even if the wording was taken literally. Its nitpicking, sure, and not a serious issue but the vast amount of lawsuits are due to nitpicking and parsing every word. I think the framers were a little bit sloppy here. I was more pointing that out that anything. Unless you had German ancestry, being born in Germany alone doesn't give you German citizenship. Germany, like many countries, gives citizenship based on blood descent. That's why there are all these children of Turkish immigrants born in Germany who are not German citizens. As for being eligible for President, the wikipedia article on "natural born citizen" gives a good summary of the issue. My own opinion is yes but no one who was born outside the U.S. to American parents has become President yet so it hasn't been settled conclusively.
The way I've always understood it, I was born as a dual citizen. My last name is Friedrich, and my mom's maiden name is Hirsch (she's related to about half of the town of Plantersville if anyone lives there....her family owns the Hirsch Family Restaurant that was there). I'm pretty German. I think I'm only like 4th generation American, or something like that. Not sure if that means anything or not. I could have just misunderstood all my life...
I can't believe that nobody has caught this thusfar. Undoubtedly a simple error but you are, I believe, thinking of William Henry Harrison. Alexander Hamilton, despite being on the $10 bill was never a president. I don't think he ever ran, and was shot to death in a duel with Aaron Burr.
There's a wikipedia article called "German nationality law" that describes some of the details on whether you qualified as a German citizen by descent. Generally speaking, if either or both of your parents were German citizens at the time you were born, then you might have been born a German citizen even if you were born in the USA. The only way to definitively settle it is to apply for a German passport and see if Germany accepts your application.
Right, that's not what he was saying. He said that the constitution was written in a manner in which Hamilton could run for president if he chose to, which he never did.
Do you mind if I repost this on the board for my poli sci class? We're going over the Constitution and such now so it would be relevant to our studies. Plus it would get me bonus points and I'd give you my undying love and devotion forever. I never thought of this but it is a really interesting question. Technically he is an illegal president but then the framers were also technically traitors under the Articles of the Confederation.
