A little hint: legal logic varies based on axiomatic and assumed principles, which tend to vary from jurist to jurist. There is no "irrefutably correct" logic, and to think that you've magically discovered it is intensely arrogant, especially when it depends on you parsing words in a way that nobody else of consequence agrees with. Your jurist has assumptions you agree with. Good. Everybody else disagrees. This places you firmly in the irrelevant minority.

Gary Lawson (a director of the Federalist society and an advocate of original intent, to give him "cred" in your ideology) told me that most of the first year of law school is coming to terms with the fact that you can never hope to prove a legal argument, just convince a judge, and that the law and rules used for it are artificial and imprecise. You have not realized that.