The holding in Wonk Kim Ark did NOT declare him to be a natural-born citizen. The Indiana Appeals Court admitted this which I've already quoted. Your other comments here don't address the problems I brought up with the inconsistent bases for each ruling you quoted. You're resorting to an appeal of circular logic about whether the cases were appealed or not. That won't make the rulings any less consistent.
There are no “problems.” A court ruling stands unless and until it is overturned by a higher court ruling or is rendered moot by legislation.
Just today the Florida Supreme Court refused to grant a Writ of Mandamus in a Florida eligibility challenge to Obama’s status under Article II, Section 1.
The original trial court had ruled: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”— Voeltz v. Obama, Judge Terry P. Lewis, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge, June 29, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/99025994/FL-2012-06-29-Voeltz-v-Obama-order-dismissing-amended-complaint
And then in Voeltz v. Obama (request for reconsideration), Judge John C. Cooper, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge ruled “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—September 6, 2012
http://judicial.clerk.leon.fl.us/image_orders.asp?caseid=77182640&jiscaseid=&defseq=&chargeseq=&dktid=57485906&dktsource=CRTV