If an adoption happened in Indonesia HI law would be irrelevant and so would the US Constitution. Only Indonesian law would matter. President Obama would keep his US citizenship but gain Indonesian citizenship too. Indonesia would not recognize the US citizenship existed though. Under Indonesian law adoption severs any connection with birth parents. There would not be an amended BC in HI if the adoption happened in Indonesia. Obama, Sr, was a Kenyan citizen, so Kenyan law might matter but HI law would not have anything to do with anything. President Obama himself admits in DOMF that he had no paperwork that proved under Kenyan law that he was Obama Sr's, son. That suggests you are wrong Not saying there was an adoption but your reasoning is faulty.
"There would not be an amended BC in HI if the adoption happened in Indonesia" Yes, I agree entirely. THAT was the point I was making. Some people are claiming that Obama's purported birth certificate is fraudulent because it doesn't show his Indonesian adoption. My point was, because of HI law, that Indonesian adoption wouldn't have been reflected in Obama's original birth records unless his mother and step-father moved legally to change those records.
"Obama, Sr, was a Kenyan citizen, so Kenyan law might matter but HI law would not have anything to do with anything."
How can the law of the place of one's birth "not have anything to do with it"?