You can't even accurately represent an "ad numerum" or "ad populum" argument. You claim that the combined and overwhelming opinion of all the LEGAL AUTHORITIES IN HISTORY is an "ad populum" argument. It isn't.
There's a huge difference in saying:
"90% of people believe that "natural born citizen" means "born a citizen," therefore it must be true,
and saying "All early American legal authorities of any real stature, the United States Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, all major relevant court cases, and every major conservative Constitutional authority all agree that "natural born citizen" means either "born a citizen" or "born in the United States," therefore that's probably what it means.
The latter of which is true, by the way.
Against which, you have what? An argumentum ad unpopulum?
That virtually nobody in history, legal expert or otherwise, believes your claim... therefore it must be true?
What kind of freaking idiocy is THAT?
So you can't even accurately represent what an "ad numerum" or "ad populum" argument actually is.
You can't even make a decent argument for your BS position.
And you can't even SPELL "ad hominem."
You're an idiot.
Unless you can demonstrate that your so-called authorities were Delegates or ratifiers, it is nothing else. The ONLY people who can opine on the meaning of Article II are the delegates and ratifiers of it. Ex post facto Lawyers are crap evidence.
And it doesn't matter how MANY of them you come up with.