Sorry, but you are in a fantasy world. The court did not hold that Obama is an NBC. Even if we were to accept this contradiction-riddled decision, there was never any legal proof that Obama was born in the United States in order to satisfy their errant definition.
The court rejected the Minor case and instead used the precedent of WKA to hold Obama to be a nbc.
It didn't reject Minor; it invented a false justification to make a declaration via common law to expand the definition of natural born citizenship in a way that has NEVER been done by the Supreme Court. And you're fooling yourself if you think this court legitimately used WKA as "precedence." The only precedence this court cited was in relation to the plaintiff's "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" which was a general citation of the Indiana Supreme Court. The Hoosier Hillbillies wisely avoided any declaration about ANY quote from WKA being a precedent. Instead, they used the term "guidance" but this was from a combination of two sources, neither of which said what the court divined. The stupid part is that under their "guidance," Obama would be a natural-born subject, not a natural-born citizen.
Just as a person born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.Thanks to the Treaty of 1783, you can be born on U.S. soil and be a foreign subject ... just like Obama. There was no dual citizenship either. You've been shown the contradictions and the actual precedential language that was accepted and affirmed in WKA: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.