Replies

I want to err on the side of the law.

No you don't. You want all the hodgepodge of law that has occurred subsequent to 1787 to alter and/or obfuscate the correct meaning of a constitutional term.

You are wrong on the NBC = two citizen parents. The courts will reject your argument.

And now I am beginning to think you are stupid. Again! With that non sequitur!

Let me make this very clear for you. I do not give a D@MN what a Court says about this issue, ESPECIALLY one that has not looked at the evidence. *YOU* may need a minder to tell you what to think, but the rest of us are intelligent enough to research this ourselves and find out what the founders meant.

They most certainly did not mean to allow anchor babies.

The courts will reject your argument.
What you're doing is called psychological reinforcement. It's also used in psychological warfare. You present something as factual when it isn't.
@The Battle for Your Mind - Propaganda, PR and PsyOps"If you think about how you think, you will find your mind is made of memories, facts, and that sort of thing; you picked these up through continual reinforcement... Using a computer metaphor, your mind is hardware (the grey matter, providing you with senses, nerve endings, neurons) and software (combined from that odd core of your being that is doing the reflecting, and the material it is reflecting upon, kind of like a computer program and its data). That isn't the whole story, of course; there is an unidentified extra component, the 'wetware,' that gives you free will, volition, self-awareness. We know next to nothing about how this piece works; it appears to be an odd combination of chaotic and stochastic processes, transcending both. About the only thing we know for certain about the human mind is that we haven't even begun to utilize it to its full potential." Michael Wilson, from: "Memetic Engineering PsyOps and Viruses for the Wetware"
You keep saying this while there is nothing whatsoever to indicate what any court will do in the future.
You're expressing an opinion, not a fact, and it will never be anything but an opinion until a court actually takes up the case instead of throwing it out on technicalities.