You’re citing a decision that has been moot for 35 years.
“The statute under which Bellei was stripped of his citizenship was repealed by the U.S. Congress in 1978.”
That’s like citing Dred Scott to support the theory that Obama can’t be president because he’s of African origin.
But the Legal principle for it still applies. The fact that they MODIFIED the law, does not speak to the point. The Law is what CONGRESS says it is, but this is a very different thing from "natural." The foundation upon which is built the citizenship of children born to a single American Parent in a foreign land is subject to the ever shifting sands of Congressional whim.
This is a far cry from being a "natural citizen." A Citizenship granted by Congress can be removed by congress, and therefore it is different from a citizenship which cannot.
That’s like citing Dred Scott to support the theory that Obama can’t be president because he’s of African origin.
Though I think Taney was wrong on that, if I followed your methodology, it would have been binding precedent until 1868. See what kind of trouble you can get into when you worship at the altar of Judicial infallibility?