[Lurking Libertarian]

Any argument that someone is wrong because many others disagree with them is a fallacy of the form "argumentum ad populum."

True in some fields. As to the definition of NBC, no court will rule differently from Arkeney or the recent Congressional Research Service report. That is how the law currently defines the term.

[sourcery]

True in some fields. As to the definition of NBC, no court will rule differently from Arkeney or the recent Congressional Research Service report. That is how the law currently defines the term.

To legally define a term requires the legal authority to do so. Once the Supreme Court defines a Constitutional term, that event absolutely denies any authority of any other court or legislature to change it.

The Supreme Court defined "natural born citizen" in Minor vs. Happerset, even stating that there was "no doubt" regarding is correctness. Therefore, any statement by anyone else who is not the Supreme Court that contradicts the definition provided by the Supreme Court lacks the authority to do so, and is legally null and void.

[DiogenesLamp]

As to the definition of NBC, no court will rule differently from Arkeney or the recent Congressional Research Service report. That is how the law currently defines the term.

That is how the people who work in the "Law" industry currently define the term. Their religion requires that they worship "Precedent." To explain "precedent" I will invoke the "Thunderbirds" Air Force team where each Wingman looks to the leader for guidance. Unfortunately in 1982 the leader couldn't pull out of a dive and the rest of them followed him straight into the ground.

THAT is how our legal system works. The Wong Kim Ark precedent has a built in Mechanical failure. Get it to crash, and all subsequent bullsh*t will crash with it.