On the contrary, Wong Kim Ark, 1898 cannot have any bearing on Barack Hussein Obama Jr.’s circumstance except in regard to the possibility of his mother conveying U.S. citizenship, IF she had been 19 years of age at the birth of her child. Wong Kim Ark, 1898 does nothing whatsoever in regard to the Constitution’s unique requirement for the definition of a “natural born citizen” as John Jay obtained the usage from Vattel and the previous two thousand years of history in France and the rest of Continental Europe. Attempts by Obama supporters to apply English-British common-law to an interpretation of the Constitution is a red herring. Upon declaring their independence from Britain, the States began to enact their own citizenship statutes and judicial decisions in replacement and overruling the English-British common-law they fought a Revoultionary War to overthrow.
The only interpretation of the Constitution which can possibly preserve the clearly stated intent of John Jay and the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitutional clause is one in which any person who is born with an allegiance to a foreign sovereign, dual allegiance or not, cannot serve as Commander-in-Chief of the United States in the Office of the President.
Barack Husseing has already publicly acknowledged he was born with a natural born allegiance to the sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain.
Ark says nothing about the age of the parents, nor does it say anything about the age of any parent with respect to the limitation of a parent's ability to convey citizenship either on the basis of jus soli or jus sanguinis. The "19 years of age" that you cite stems from a law that was passed long after US v. Ark was decided. And, that statute deals only with children that are born to US citizens while outside the jurisdiction of the US. Ark has everything to do with children that are born within the jurisdiction of the US. Big difference.
"Barack Hussein has already publicly acknowledged he was born with a natural born allegiance to the sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain."
Ark does nothing to address or even acknowledge dual citizenship, or obtaining foreign citizenship as a minor child. But, another Supreme Court case does. You can reference a 1930's case Perkins v. Elg. It tackles, head on, a child, who was born in the US to Swedish nationals and subsequently moved back to Sweden with his parents. The court held that even though his parents obtained Swedish citizenship on his behalf, that could have no bearing on or provide no obstacle towards his ability to "reclaim" his US citizenship, provided he did so within a reasonable time of becoming an adult.
Welcome, n00bie (that’s the nice version; n00b is the not so nice version). And as you have no doubt reaqd, the Perkins v Elg case prior to Wong held that Miss Elg was an American citizen and allowed to stand the lower court’s designation of her as a natural born citizen ... her faqther was a naturalized American citizne at her birth, and the wife—by then existing statutes—was an American citizen through the father. She was also born on American soil (jus soli + jus sanguin)