You said — “Yet for what you are saying to be true then everything would also have to go *exactly* the same way this time around.”
No, nothing in history ever goes exactly the same way. We just learn from the principles and similarities.
—
You asked — “How many cases were before the Supreme Court in regards to Arthur?”
Can’t tell you, but I would wonder further... how many pieces of legislation were invalidated during Chester A. Arthur’s term in office, because he was not a legitimate President?
>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).
That's a damn good question. What bills did Arthur sign into law?