That is made up garbage. Sauce that belief. Show me one founding father that suggested the like in. the federalist or anti-fed papers. Anchor babies are not naturalized.
So, if dad fights in a foreign war, that's a conflict, but not grand dad? How about brother? If your brother enlists in a foreign military are you ineligible due to possible conflicts and divided loyalties?
And again, if you would bother yourself to actually read Article 1 Section 3, you wouldn't be suggesting such nonsense.
It comes from the standard legal language of the day. Do your research and you'll find that there was a standard international legal dictionary (published in France and generally accepted) which was used.
I've done my research and what was suggested in that post is utter garbage.
If you have law or legal precedent, let's see it. I'm not your researcher for horseshit.
We don't subscribe to "international law". There is no international legal body with jurisdiction in the US, and fuck everything that has anything to do with France. What utter fucking stupidity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_jure_belli_ac_pacis
Start there. International Law and specific legal definitions were a thing in the 18th century so that two nations could agree on terminology utilized in legal disputes across borders.
(post is archived)