My goodness! The brilliance of your comeback has taken my breath away!
Of course I know about logical fallacies. And yes, I know the Latin names for them as well.
Given what you post, I dare say you look up fallacies just to make sure your arguments conform to them.
You display your own breathtaking ignorance by assuming you know what you're talking about - in regard to me, and in regard to quite a few other things as well.
If there is one thing that you are an expert on, it's "breathtaking ignorance."
I am frankly shocked to hear that you are supposedly an electronics engineer. Not that I really believe it. It is unfathomable that a real electronics engineer could engage in so many fallacies while pretending to understand logic.
I am not promulgating fallacies. They just appear as such to you because you lack the wit to comprehend. That helpful link I posted for you ought to help you avoid this kind of misidentification in the future.
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.