Comment: Flawed Logic

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Natural-Born Citizen Defined (see in situ)

Flawed Logic

Your method is deceptive and/or includes several fallacies. For example:

- In #1, you append the comment (your opinion) about dual citizenship to your "evidence" without identifying it as your opinion.
- In #2, you attempt to set up a straw man by implying that the wording "born a citizen" is different from "natural born citizen". There is no evidence that these two phrases are not identical in meaning.
- in #3, you now attempt to knock down your straw man, implying there is a selection of the "more stringent".
- in #4, while de Vattel does argue that a child born in country of foreign parents is not a citizen, you offer no proof that his reference is definitive or familiar to the founders. Nor is there any proof that the founders "being familiar" with a work means that they ascribe to that view or that they define the term in the same way as de Vattel.
- In #5, this was never in question.
- In #6, Inconceivable. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." For example, I can conceive that the founders would have chosen NBC if it meant someone could be President merely by being born a citizen on US soil (or born a citizen on foreign soil for that matter). So it is not inconceivable.
- In #7, your argument is that by not including the term "natural-born" they are providing a special but invisible de facto proof? Exclusion may indicate that they considered "born" as the same thing as "natural-born".

---
Finally your conclusion start with "therefore: the only logical and intelligent conclusion..."

Since your argument is fraught with logical fallacies, I will venture to say that you are ill-equipped to define "the only logical" conclusion.

In the constitution I see only two categories of citizen defined, which I interpret as:
- natural-born (made citizen by birth)
- naturalized (made citizen by process(after-birth))

I respect your right to disagree, but I do not find your argument valid or convincing.