“v. Happersett, in context, ^did^ define NBC as born on US soil to both a man and a woman who were citizens at the time of birth (not just ONE parent, but both). “
I’ve already posted the part you leave out which is the court said that was one definition but not the only definition.
You still haven’t read that decision or else you wouldn’t have made such an ignorant and stupid claim as that.
:: You still haven’t read that decision or else you wouldn’t have made such an ignorant and stupid claim as that. ::
I’m beginning to think that you, sir, are a progressive plant that looks to stir up emotions rather than discuss history and facts.
You question my understanding of M v. H without knowing me and then make ad hominem insults as to my overall knowledge. You say I haven’t read the decision - without evidence - and then proceed to beat that strawman with fever.
Sir, the US Constitution is not the intrepretive property of lawyers and certainly not left to modern barristers to decide outside of “history since FDR”.
What is your definition of “We The People”? Or do you need to consult a lawyer to answer that?