>how many pieces of legislation were invalidated during Chester A. Arthur’s term in office, because he was not a legitimate President?<
And what does that prove? I say nothing.
The historical case of Arthur does not prove that there is no harm in ignoring the requirements of the Constitution for eligibility.
These are much different times and this case may have already gotten hotter than the case against Arthur ever did (not sure but would venture that it has).
You said — “And what does that prove? I say nothing.”
Well, then I guess you don’t want to know the answer to that question. However, I would still like to know the answer to that question of how many pieces of legislation was invalidated during Chester A. Arthur’s term in office. That would give me some indication from history as to what we’ll be facing...
—
And then you said — “The historical case of Arthur does not prove that there is no harm in ignoring the requirements of the Constitution for eligibility.”
Well, I would like to know from history, what effect it had on the Constitutional provisions for President of the United States and if the present-day qualifications were changed by that episode of Arthur not being qualified. That’s something that I would like to know... Has it changed from that time?
—
And finally you said — “These are much different times and this case may have already gotten hotter than the case against Arthur ever did (not sure but would venture that it has).”
It sure is “hot” in certain quarters — but it’s certainly a total “non-starter” in other quarters. I guess it depends on what place you’re looking at it from...