An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument toward the person” or “argument against the person”), is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Ad nauseam is a Latin term used to describe an argument which has been continuing “to [the point of] nausea”.[1] For example, the sentence “This topic has been discussed ad nauseam” signifies that the topic in question has been discussed extensively and everyone involved in the discussion is sick and tired of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_nauseam
“Ad nauseam” arguments are logical fallacies relying on the repetition of a single argument to the exclusion of all else. This tactic employs intentional obfuscation, in which other logic and rationality is intentionally ignored in favour of preconceived (and ultimately subjective) modes of reasoning and rationality.
In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in argumentation. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor (e.g. appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority). Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical argument, making fallacies more difficult to diagnose. Also, the components of the fallacy may be spread out over separate arguments.
But I do have the words of the framers of the 14th:
When pressed about whether Indians living on reservations would be covered by the clause since they were “most clearly subject to our jurisdiction, both civil and military,” for example, Senator Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the drafting and adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, responded that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant subject to its “complete” jurisdiction, “[n]ot owing allegiance to anybody else.” And Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the language of the jurisdiction clause on the floor of the Senate, contended that it should be construed to mean “a full and complete jurisdiction,” “the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now” (i.e., under the 1866 Act). That meant that the children of Indians who still “belong[ed] to a tribal relation” and hence owed allegiance to another sovereign (however dependent the sovereign was) would not qualify for citizenship under the clause. Because of this interpretative gloss, provided by the authors of the provision, an amendment offered by Senator James Doolittle of Wisconsin explicitly to exclude “Indians not taxed,” as the 1866 Act had done, was rejected as redundant.
Here we see the original intent. WKA does not provide that but I guess you are still having trouble understanding the concept of how to derive original intent.
1st you go to the framers of the document/bill/law and if the meaning is still ambiguous, then you go further back.
capiche
But, the Wong court discussed the allegiance argument. They determined that the level of allegiance required was met by being subject to our laws, etc. That is why ambassadors, foreign sovereigns, invading soldiers, and Indians etc, weren’t NBCs. They may have been born here, but it was under “active, open, and overt” color of non-American law. For example, embassies are considered foreign soil for all intents and purposes.
That is also why Americans born overseas to military or diplomatic parents are NBCs. The jus sanguis prong of NBC.
parsy