All anyone has to do to make you look like a liar and a fool is to provide one. The Thread above has already done so. A smarter argument would have been to claim that the BULK of evidence is on your side. (It isn't, but it is a more plausible claim.) To say there is NO evidence against you is just stupid.
I'm not claiming there is not a single figure in history who has made your argument. There are a few. But they are VERY, VERY few, their arguments are weak, they generally failed to carry the point, and they are completely insignificant compared with the entire vast weight of history and law.
You were, in fact, claiming that very thing. That you are no longer claiming it means we have made progress.
There are a few. But they are VERY, VERY few,
Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy. It doesn't matter how few their were, reality is not subject to a majority. Sometimes a majority just means that all the fools are on the same side.
But they are VERY, VERY few, their arguments are weak,
So you characterize them. I don't regard them as weak at all, I regard the theory which gives us Anchor Babies and Birth Tourism, and has the paradoxes of Indians, Slaves, and Loyalists, to be the weaker theory.
they generally failed to carry the point, and they are completely insignificant compared with the entire vast weight of history and law.
You mean the momentum which has been built up around a false interpretation? I see the exact same phenomena in the legal Abortion debate. The legal arguments used to overturn laws against abortion are nonsensical, (Misuse of the 14th amendment, same as your argument.) but nevertheless, a large momentum has been built up to the point where most people think it's constitutionally legal.