(01-22-2023, 08:04 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote:

(01-22-2023, 01:05 AM)p_rushing Wrote: That doesn't mean it was the right decision. The argument is that the legal definition at the time does not agree with that ruling.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

That argument is wrong. The definition used in the Constitution was based on 200 years of English Common Law.  They and we all know what they meant, only people playing politics pretend otherwise. I don't like her one bit but she's eligible.

(01-22-2023, 10:27 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: Yup. FSG is right. The US didn't even have immigration restrictions back then.

I don't think the argument will be won but the requirements were in place to stop someone that had loyalties somewhere else from being able to buy the presidency. It would be a long and risky thing that they wouldn't even live long enough with shorter lifespans.

With no immigration laws, you needed something to stop someone from having a child here but keep loyalties and passing those on to the kid. It wouldn't be fullproof but having 2 generations of citizens help assimilate people.

With it not being spelled out, it's up to interpretation and that is never great as we have seen from all the liberal judges.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

---