[Ray76]

Your post 274

The Fact that it says "Son of a Freeholder" pretty much screws your argument. You see, according to YOUR theory, that passage shouldn't exist.

No, it doesn't. Once again, you spin absolute BS.

Nowhere does it say that only "sons of freeholders" are citizens.

You're an idiot.

But I repeat myself.

You show the post where the claim was made “that only sons of freeholders are citizens”.

[Jeff Winston]

You show the post where the claim was made “that only sons of freeholders are citizens”.

The claim was made, by DiogenesLamp:

The Fact that it says "Son of a Freeholder" pretty much screws your argument. You see, according to YOUR theory, that passage shouldn't exist.

There is no incompatibility with the passage, and what the meaning of "natural born citizen" has always been.

NONE.

[Jeff Winston]

And the way that there would BE incompatibility, would be if the passage had said that only the sons of freeholders were citizens.

But it doesn’t say that. I rightly pointed out that nowhere does it say that only the sons of freeholders are citizens.