Ark says nothing about the age of the parents, nor does it say anything about the age of any parent with respect to the limitation of a parent's ability to convey citizenship either on the basis of jus soli or jus sanguinis. The "19 years of age" that you cite stems from a law that was passed long after US v. Ark was decided. And, that statute deals only with children that are born to US citizens while outside the jurisdiction of the US. Ark has everything to do with children that are born within the jurisdiction of the US. Big difference.
"Barack Hussein has already publicly acknowledged he was born with a natural born allegiance to the sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain."
Ark does nothing to address or even acknowledge dual citizenship, or obtaining foreign citizenship as a minor child. But, another Supreme Court case does. You can reference a 1930's case Perkins v. Elg. It tackles, head on, a child, who was born in the US to Swedish nationals and subsequently moved back to Sweden with his parents. The court held that even though his parents obtained Swedish citizenship on his behalf, that could have no bearing on or provide no obstacle towards his ability to "reclaim" his US citizenship, provided he did so within a reasonable time of becoming an adult.
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.