Your response misrepresents my comments, insofar as I indicated Wong Kim Ark, 1898 did not contribute to a definition of the term, “natural born citizen”, as used in the Constitution.
Barack Hussein has already publicly acknowledged he was born with a natural born allegiance to the sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Suggestions that Wong Kim Ark, 1898 has or ever can effect a change to the meaning of “natural born citizen” is a false argument and a red herring. The intent of John Jay, George Washington, and Congress was crystal clear. No person born with an allegiance to a foreign sovereign can lawfully serve as Commander-in-Chief of the United States.
First of all, I didn't intentionally misrepresent you comments. I thought, from my reading of your post, that you were claiming that the fact that Obama's mother was a certain had some kind of bearing on his citizenship status. My apologies if I misunderstood your point.
Also, I wouldn't go as far as to say US v. Ark doesn't contribute to a definition of the term, "natural born citizen". While it doesn't specifically define the term of art, it does go at great lengths in the majority opinion to give that term some context. Also, as I mentioned to another poster, the dissent in US v. Ark also shines some light on what "natural born" may mean. I would invite you to read Fuller's dissent and pay particular attention to this part where he cticises the majority opinion...
Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not."
He's acquiescing that Ark, while born to two foreign nationals, is eligible to be president and he's also lamenting the fact that a child who may be born to two US citizens, but while overseas, will not. That's pretty compelling evidence, and certainly evidence that any court ruling on this kind of issue would seriously take under advisement.
I am personalty of the opinion that, as you point out, the framers didn't intend to allow children born to parents owing allegiance to a foreign king to be president, even if that birth occurred on US soil, and if the parents where under the jurisdiction of the US therein. But, that is an opinion and the matter is far from settled law.
You said, "No person born with an allegiance to a foreign sovereign can lawfully serve as Commander-in-Chief of the United States."
But, in point of fact it's happening right now and it's completely legal. There is a wide divide between how laws should be interpreted and how they are interpreted. In this instance, SCOTUS - when denying a writ of certiorari Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells - is signaling where they come down on the matter. It doesn't make it right, but it does make it the law of the land, for now.