As our Founding Fathers were discussing the creation of the Senate, or upper house in Congress, they had to consider qualifications for members to hold such important positions. What they determined constitutes Article I, Section III, Clause III, of the Constitution or what is known as the Senate Qualification Clause. This clause reads, “No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.”
Because of the added responsibilities of the Senate, the qualifications are increased from those of the House of Representatives. In the House, representatives only needed to be 25 years of age and live in the U.S. for seven years. Alexander Hamilton explained the difference between the two houses and why the Senate needed greater qualifications in Federalist No. 62, which reads, “The propriety of these distinctions is explained by the nature of the senatorial trust, which, requiring greater extent of information and stability of character, requires at the same time that the senator should have reached a period of life most likely to supply these advantages.”
To put it simply, with age comes wisdom. We see later in Section III, the Senate has many more duties than the House including conformation of Cabinet positions and judges. Our Founders wanted more mature men to hold these positions — men who had reached the ripe, old age of 30. How many of you are suddenly feeling old?
When considering length of citizenship, our Founders considered the Senate’s role in foreign policy, especially the ratification of treaties with foreign nations. They wanted to ensure senators had completely embraced American ideals and given up old connections. Again, Hamilton in Federalist No. 62 wrote, “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.”
There were some, especially among the immigrants like Pennsylvania delegate James Wilson, who felt a lengthy citizenship requirement would preclude qualified individuals. In all there were seven foreign-born delegates, and ones like Wilson felt their careers had been hampered because of citizenship requirements. Yet others felt the citizenship length should be even longer.
Gov. Morris, a delegate from New York, stated, “Foreigners will not learn our laws & Constitution under 14 yrs.—7 yrs must be applied to learn to be a Shoe Maker—14 at least are necessary to learn to be an Amer. Legislator.”
In the end, Hamilton, who was one of the seven foreign-born, explained, “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.”
Finally, a senator must live in the state in which they are elected. Interestingly, with the age and Inhabitant requirement, the Constitution does not say when those requirements must be met. That would not be determined until over a century later in 1935. In that year Rush Holt defeated the incumbent Sen. Henry D. Hatfield of West Virginia. Hatfield challenged Holt’s election because he was only 29 at the time of the election and would not turn 30 until July the following year. By the time the Senate rules took up the challenge, Holt had turned 30 and they upheld his election because he had not presented himself to the Senate and took his oath until his 30th birthday. With this decision, the Senate set the rule that senators must reach the age of 30 before they take their seat — not before the election. Later the same logic was applied to the inhabitant rule. A senator must live in the state before he takes his seat, not before.
Though not specifically discussed in this clause, it should be mentioned that future judicial action eliminated Congress or state legislatures’ ability to add any requirement to run for the Senate. Our Framers knew this could be used to deny possible future congressmen. Federalist No. 52 stated, “Under these reasonable limitations, the door of this part of the federal government is open to merit of every description, whether native or adoptive, whether young or old, and without regard to poverty or wealth, or to any particular profession of religious faith.”
While this was mostly just understood, there were a few examples of Congress imposing new requirements, mostly after the Civil War when new southern congressmen were denied their seats. However, in 1969, the Supreme Court made it official in Powell v. McCormack. In that case Rep. Adam Clayton Powell of New York was held in criminal contempt. After he won reelection, he was excluded from Congress on the grounds of his crime. The Court ruled that if he satisfied the requirements in Article I, then Congress could not add further requirements, including criminal records.
James Finck is a professor of American history at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma. He may be reached at HistoricallySpeak-ing1776@ gmail.com.
