Not necessarily. Otherwise they would have adopted Hamilton's version.
Which as Leo points out, came first...preceding Jay's letter to Washington.
**”Does ‘citizen at birth’ mean ‘natural born citizen?’”
—Not necessarily. Otherwise they would have adopted Hamilton’s version.
++++++++++++
That said, could the SCOTUS change that or extend the meaning of it (not saying they should), but could they, if they disregarded the meaning of those underlying source documents. Could they say ‘citizen at birth’ = ‘natural born citizen’ and basically punt the ball here and eliminate this issue, other than the devastating (imho) deception/cover up aspects of it?
I’m trying to view the end game legalities here.
Or the SCOTUS could just refuse to bring this case forward, which seems also likely.
Frankly, I don’t really see this going our way.
Anyone else care to comment on the possible SCOTUS outcomes?