“Any argument that someone is wrong because many others disagree with them”
It’s not that you’re wrong because just any many others disagree with you. It’s that constitutional law professors and judges disagree with you. You’re not an attorney, let alone a law professor or a judge, right? It’s more likely that it’s your opinion of who is a natural born citizen that’s mistaken not theirs. Who is more likely to be more skilled at interpreting the Constitution properly? You or the judges of the Indiana Court of Appeals?
Listen broken bulb, The Constitution was written in plain English. We can read. one does not have to be a "Scholar" or a "Lawyer" to understand it. "We The People" sound familiar?
That's easy. Any court system that could conclude the 14th Amendment bans prayer in School, gives women a right to kill their offspring, and creates anchor babies, obviously can't be too competent at interpreting the constitution properly. Throw in Kelo v New London, the exclusionary rule, and the ridiculous expansion of the Interstate Commerce clause, and you've pretty much made the case that the ONLY people who shouldn't be allowed to interpret the constitution are the ones who are doing it now.
As William F Buckley said:
I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.
Regarding the issue of "natural born citizen", anyone can research it and discover it's true meaning and purpose. Those trained in the lawyerly profession are schooled into a "rut" of thought from which most of them cannot break. The same sort of problem exists in the scientific community and is referred to as "intellectual phase lock."
Only a person who is willing to take a fresh look at the issue without preconceived notions is able to make an objective analysis. The Robed Priests of academia and the courts are too steeped in their own dogma and rituals.
So to answer your question, any relatively intelligent person is likely more skilled at interpreting the Constitution properly than are those people who have been taught to live in a rut.
As Ronald Reagan said:
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, its just that they know so much that isn't so "
Your argument is an example of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.
Court decisions get overturned all the time. That’s why courts of appeal exist.
Going even deeper, the law is ultimately political. Historically, there’s an ever-repeating cycle where the law gets so out of synch with the people that the people decide they need to hit the reset button, which can be as gentle as changing how they vote, or as harsh as bringing out the Guillotines.
The current disagreement over the definition of NBC is becoming just as much of a political argument regarding what the law should be as opposed to merely a legal argument over what the legal profession claims it is.
Lawyers can be and have been overruled by the people many times in the past.
Atty. Van Irion to Appeal Judge Malihi’s Decision: Court Ignored Basic Rules of Interpretation
“The one point of good news from this ruling is that we have FINALLY gotten a court to rule on the merits of our argument. This may seem like a hollow victory, but it isnt. Before this everyone that has brought a challenge against Obamas eligibility has been dismissed on procedural grounds. Nothing is more devastating to the rule of law than a judicial branch that refuses to do its job. Before this case we had courts across the country telling Americans that they had no right to enforce the Constitution. That was absurdity at its most extreme. Liberty Legal Foundation found a case that we believed would at least get a ruling on the merits. We hate the ruling we got, but at least we got a ruling. Now we can appeal that ruling. The appeals process now will focus on the definition of “natural born citizen” rather than procedure for the first time since the issue of Obama’s eligibility was raise in 2008.”