Of course you are. Whether you recognize it or not.
The great joke here is that if a person actually understands the history and law, it is completely obvious that your whole theory goes dead-set against both the history and the laws of the United States.
And yet you make these solemn pronouncements of what you think the law is, and act as if you know, and as if you're an expert, and it's all a complete fairy tale.
It is downright FUNNY. It is FUNNY to watch you act as if you think you're an expert in Constitutional law, when your entire theory is the most enormous load of horse manure.
And it's equally funny to watch you defend that load of horse manure to the death, apparently believing sincerely that it's a pile of "brown gold."
Let's take just one small example here.
I've produced a list of quotes of what the very best early authorities in America thought natural born citizenship was all about. Last I counted, I had more than 30 of those quotes.
Now there are a FEW of those quotes (although it's a small minority) that one could say probably reflect less of the expert legal opinion, and more of the popular understanding of what "natural born citizen" meant.
That, by the way, is NOT an irrelevant "argumentum ad populum" or "appeal to public opinion."
Another funny thing here is that you appear too damn stupid to understand that it's not really possible to have an "appeal to public opinion" fallacy when the topic of what you're discussing is THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT A PHRASE MEANT.
Which, to some fair degree, is the case here. Now I haven't majored on what the public understanding was. But the public understanding of what natural born citizen meant is entirely relevant to the discussion for one simple reason.
The Framers weren't writing a document intended primarily for lawyers. They were writing a document THAT THEY INTENDED THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND.
So is what ordinary people would have understood "natural born citizen" to mean relevant? Of course it is.
Or do you, in seeking to defend your pile of "brown gold," now claim that the Framers of the Constitution, in establishing a new government in which the People rule, intended to write a document that could only be understood by lawyers and Swiss philosophers?
If you make such a claim, it's idiotic. Whether you recognize it or not.
In any event, as noted, the vast majority of my list of quotes comes from the BEST EXPERTS AND TOP AUTHORITIES in the early United States.
And the people on that list are all pretty much unanimous in their opinions. They are perhaps most clearly represented by William Rawle, an absolute legal expert, a literal COLLEAGUE of two of our very most important Framers, and the man who founded our nation's oldest existing law firm. But others, such as Chancellor Sandford, are quite equally adamant.
Against this enormous lineup of REAL, WORLD-CLASS AUTHORITY, you are able to produce ONE GUY, who was not a lawyer at all, and whose theories on citizenship were SMACKED DOWN by the FATHER OF THE CONSTITUTION and virtually every other one of our early leaders who heard and evaluated them.
THIRTY-FREAKING-SIX TO ONE.
And yet here you are, the "expert" who bandies about the Latin names of logical fallacies while clearly not understanding them, brandishing the utterly discredited little paper from David Ramsay as if it were a pronouncement from God, while baldly asserting that the entire weight of early American legal opinion doesn't mean jack.
It is really too funny.
You keep repeating this like an incantation. Like it will magically make you correct or something. It is just a variation of "I'm right, and You're wrong" assertion. It is, in fact, a waste of time, because your claim is exactly what is currently being argued.
And yet you make these solemn pronouncements of what you think the law is, and act as if you know, and as if you're an expert, and it's all a complete fairy tale.
And you describe exactly how you look to others.
It is downright FUNNY. It is FUNNY to watch you act as if you think you're an expert in Constitutional law, when your entire theory is the most enormous load of horse manure.
And again, this is exactly how you look to others.
I've produced a list of quotes of what the very best early authorities in America thought natural born citizenship was all about. Last I counted, I had more than 30 of those quotes.
And for some reason you seem to think that each one has equal weight with every other one, as if by their sheer numbers, they prove something. You seem to live and breath the fallacy of "argumentum ad populum", but apart from that, your quotes run the gamut of irrelevant to barely relevant, and very little attention is paid to the value or quality of the quote as with the person making it.
Again, My Chief Justice Marshall, and Associate Justice Washington, beat the ever living dog-sh*t out of your Attorney General Rawle, both in authoritative status, AND in proximity to the deliberations making up the theory of American government. They specifically cite Vattel, even so far as to laboriously write his words in their own handwriting!
Again, My pair of Supreme Justices beats your Jack.
That, by the way, is NOT an irrelevant "argumentum ad populum" or "appeal to public opinion."
Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.
Another funny thing here is that you appear too damn stupid to understand that it's not really possible to have an "appeal to public opinion" fallacy when the topic of what you're discussing is THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT A PHRASE MEANT.
You clod. The reference to populum does not mean "the public." It means appealing to any bunch of people. It puts forth the notion that you must be correct because a lot of people agree that you are correct. It is "correctness by majority vote", which is not the same thing as actually being correct. Another name for it is argumentum ad numerum. Here is a link to variations on the same theme.
"Facts decided by consensus." For some reason you think this is logical. Galileo was correct. The Majority was wrong.
In any event, as noted, the vast majority of my list of quotes comes from the BEST EXPERTS AND TOP AUTHORITIES in the early United States.
No they doen't. As I have pointed out, the best contemporary expert you've got is Rawle, and Justices Marshall and Washington beat him soundly as a top authority. There is no authority higher in law than a Supreme court Judge. You just don't like what they say, so you don't count them.
Against this enormous lineup of REAL, WORLD-CLASS AUTHORITY, you are able to produce ONE GUY, who was not a lawyer at all, and whose theories on citizenship were SMACKED DOWN by the FATHER OF THE CONSTITUTION and virtually every other one of our early leaders who heard and evaluated them.
I am beginning to think you are a psychotic. You have been presented numerous times with other authorities, by myself and others, yet you assert that only one has been presented to you? You need to get some mental help son.
THIRTY-FREAKING-SIX TO ONE.
And you keep obsessing about numbers. "Argumentum ad numerum."
Now do your little stampy foot dance, and whine that you are "NOT using a fallacy!" I'll wait.
And yet here you are, the "expert" who bandies about the Latin names of logical fallacies while clearly not understanding them, brandishing the utterly discredited little paper from David Ramsay as if it were a pronouncement from God, while baldly asserting that the entire weight of early American legal opinion doesn't mean jack.
And this is an example of the "straw man fallacy." That various authorities were confused as to the correct meaning was pointed out by Justice Waite in Minor v Happersett. Not only are you misstating my position, (hence the straw man) you are not even attributing any role to those American legal Authorities that don't follow your theory.