[A strike]

I refer you to previously posted statements regarding all your “previously cited” subsequent legal mumbo-jumbo.
Why can’t you simply answer the question of WHY it was a qualification without going into all the bullSchiff about ‘such and such a judge said this’?
You cannot rationally argue against the articles’ conclusion regarding the Original Intent without being more dishonest.

-fJRoberts-

[Ultra Sonic 007]

And those citations (one of which is from the very first legal treatise published in America, from back in 1795, when most of the Founders were still living) weren't clear enough about the applicability of common law?

Why can’t you simply answer the question of WHY it was a qualification without going into all the bullSchiff about ‘such and such a judge said this’?

Because the very nature of the common law system is based on court decisions and case precedent. If something is not defined explicitly constitutionally or by statute, then one may resort to the common law for an understanding of terms.

You may not like it, but that's the way it is.