You were, in fact, claiming that very thing. That you are no longer claiming it means we have made progress.
There are a few. But they are VERY, VERY few,
Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy. It doesn't matter how few their were, reality is not subject to a majority. Sometimes a majority just means that all the fools are on the same side.
But they are VERY, VERY few, their arguments are weak,
So you characterize them. I don't regard them as weak at all, I regard the theory which gives us Anchor Babies and Birth Tourism, and has the paradoxes of Indians, Slaves, and Loyalists, to be the weaker theory.
they generally failed to carry the point, and they are completely insignificant compared with the entire vast weight of history and law.
You mean the momentum which has been built up around a false interpretation? I see the exact same phenomena in the legal Abortion debate. The legal arguments used to overturn laws against abortion are nonsensical, (Misuse of the 14th amendment, same as your argument.) but nevertheless, a large momentum has been built up to the point where most people think it's constitutionally legal.
No, I wasn't. You took my post, which was not 100% literal, just a tiny bit too literally.
Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy.
Do you know what's a far bigger fallacy? Your bogus little appeal to authority, where you pose as an expert by throwing out terms like "argumentum ad populum."
As can be seen by the idiotic claims you've previously made, you're no expert.
I refer to such stupid claims as putting forth David Ramsay as a "better" expert than William Rawle. As trying to use Thomas Jefferson's Virginia citizenship law, which was straight jus soli, in favor of your claim. As trying to quote James Madison, who said PLACE OF BIRTH was THE MOST CERTAIN CRITERION and WHAT APPLIES IN THE UNITED STATES, as some argument in favor of your claim that it takes BOTH place of birth and parentage. As trying to claim that a law passed 13 years after a court case was a response to that court case. As saying that "natural born subject" is unrelated to "natural born citizen" when no one ever stated the two were unrelated, and it's clear that we replaced the word "subject" for the word "citizen" at the exact same time in history that we replaced "natural born subject" with "natural born citizen."
Really, your idiocies just go on and on. Ah, yes. But you're an expert. Because you can say, "argumentum ad populum."