[DiogenesLamp]

Scientific facts have an existence independent of what anyone knows or thinks. Law is different; law, by definition, is what legislators and judges say it is. Otherwise, how could the law be different in New York from New Jersey or Alabama. As Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote more than 100 years ago, when you ask a lawyer what the law is, you are asking for nothing more or less than an accurate prediction of what a court will rule if asked this quesstion next week.

Irrelevant to my point. I thought I made it very clear, but obviously not clear enough. My point was that the naysaying of many does not make someone wrong.

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

[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.

[tablelamp]

“Any argument that someone is wrong because many others disagree with them”
It’s not that you’re wrong because just any many others disagree with you. It’s that constitutional law professors and judges disagree with you. You’re not an attorney, let alone a law professor or a judge, right? It’s more likely that it’s your opinion of who is a natural born citizen that’s mistaken not theirs. Who is more likely to be more skilled at interpreting the Constitution properly? You or the judges of the Indiana Court of Appeals?