The arguments for natural born citizen rest on where the natural allegiance of the individual lie. So lets compare Marie with Barry:
1 Marie’s parents were natives of Sweden, naturalized at her birth, who returned to Sweden and renounced US citizenship.
Barry’s parents were a split - born in the USA, and born in Kenya. Barry’s mother never gave up her US citizenship, while his father never claimed it.
2 Marie’s mother moved to Sweden with Marie when Marie was 4, and they both lived there as Swedish citizens for the next 17 years.
Barry’s father was not legally married to his mother, doesn’t seem to have ever lived with her as man & wife, left them completely when he was 2 or 3 and only saw Barry once during the remainder of his life.
3 Marie lived as a Swedish citizen for 17 years, while Barry has no record of ever renouncing US citizenship, and has retained his citizenship his entire life (as best as we can tell from any records). He certainly has never claimed UK or Kenyan citizenship.
So...who has claims of a stronger natural allegiance to the USA, Marie or Barry?
Yes, I agree that Barry is a severely warped individual who believes in Rev Wright’s and Bill Ayer’s teachings...but who would normally have greater natural allegiance to the USA - Marie or Barry?
I think that is how a court would approach this case, and I think the answer is clearly that Barry has more reason to love the USA than Marie had. That he doesn’t is due to his perversion - I don’t know how anyone can read Dreams without concluding that Barry needs serious counseling to help him get over his issues of abandonment, rejection and hatred.
But purely from the facts, who would naturally feel the greatest allegiance to the USA?
OTOH, I grant that I’m not a lawyer and certainly cannot say with certainty how the Supreme Court would approach this.
The Constitution does not say that you can be president if you have a likelihood to hold allegiance to the US. It says you have to be a NBC. Marie is legally qualified, Obama is probably not. (More evidence is required). Even if you showed Obama as being the most loyal, America-loving person out there, if he is not a NBC, you could still not make him President without changing the Constitution. We are still bound to the law. The constitution is there to protect us. It's not fool proof, but it probably works most of the time.
I agree with you that the NBC clause was written to make sure that the person in office's primary allegiance was to the US, but I still say Marie probably has the stronger claim based in law. NBC status is not a guarantee of loyalty. I'm sure that there are NBCs out there who are not loyal to the US. But people are less likely to betray a people to whom they are bound by blood and where their family is. Its not fool proof, but it mitigates the risk of treachery significantly, and is why it was put into the US Constitution. Yeah, Marie's situation is odd and her loyalty may be questioned, but legally how can you dispute her NBC status? She never renounced her citizenship as far as I am aware, and I don't know if she ever took up Swedish Citizenship.
Obama has split loyalties from the get go. We don't even know if his mother ever renounced her US citizenship or not. She did marry and Indonesian and may have renounced her citizenship in the process. Who knows? The question is therefore, is not who is most likely to be loyal to the US, Marie or Obama. The question is which one is an NBC. Marie was ruled in a court of law to be NBC, Obama never has been.