OK - that made me chuckle.
In a good way.
Then mission accomplished!
Sometimes stating facts, particularly when facts are being debated, IS the point.
It is a fact that American case law, which is our common law system, places a high value on precedent and the concept of “stare decisis.”
It is a fact that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment (Section 1) has been interpreted since its adoption in 1868 as the definitive constitutional position on citizenship for ALL Americans (”All persons born or naturalized...”). The 14th Amendment did not supplant Article II, Section 1, it simply further defined it. “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.”— Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
It is a fact that the precedent established in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 has stood as “stare decisis” for the last 115 years.
It is a fact that the Ankeny ruling in Indiana cited US v. Wong Kim Ark as one of the legal precedents for the Indiana Court of Appeals ruling and it is a fact that other courts have also been persuaded by the Ankeny ruling. That is the way precedent works however ANY judge or court majority can choose to go against precedent or establish a new precedent.
On issues of presidential eligibility under Article 2, Section 1, to date, no court has gone against precedent.
From a Reagan judge: Taitz v. Obama (Quo Warranto) “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as is required by the Constitution. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”— Chief US District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, US District Court for the District of Columbia, April 14, 2010