<>Please note that the Court rejects the idea that she lost her “native born American citizen” and had instead remained a “natural born citizen”. <>
Right — because she was born on American soil of two naturalized American citizens — a decision fully consistent with the traditional historical definition of “natural born citizen” as the following link shows:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/
Please note they consider native born citizen and natural born citizen to be equivalent, and a native born citizen allowed to run for President.
And no one I’ve seen yet denies that Obama is a native born citizen IF he was born in Hawaii.
Also, if Marie’s birth allows her to retain loyalty to the US even after she is taken back to Sweden at 4, and both parents reject US citizenship (mother by default, father by affirmation), then I suspect - again, I’m not a lawyer - the Supreme Court would rule Obama retained full allegiance by birth in the USA.
Also, please note that for the purposes of argument, I’d be content if others would allow that my opinions are based on reading and thinking, and not based on my presumed hatred for America and traitorous thoughts.
I’d be happy if birthers and non-birthers on FR could disagree without rancor or assumption that non-birthers are traitors to their country.