Neither is it rendered conclusive or authoritative. That it worked in the case in hand doesn't mean it works in a dual citizen case.
-- In fact, there is language in the opinion that runs counter to your supposed counterpoint --
That doesn't run against the general tenor of the case, that dual citizenship creates "uncertainties in loyalty," as well illustrated by the case.
And your blockquote about duties of citizenship apply equally to those naturalized, as to those not-naturalized. The naturalized "owed the United States the same duty of allegiance as any other citizen."
At any rate, you have your opinion, I have mine. I presume you hold that the Supreme Court would rule along with the scholars that you note.
I would point out that the weight of scholarship, today, holds that born-abroad is not a barrier to NBC. I assume you agree with that, too.
Oh, please. The Courts (the SCOTUS and others) have repeatedly noted that dichotomy, affirming that all "native born" persons are eligible for Presidency. The scholarly articles are all in accord. The noted exceptions are always the same: cases of diplomats, hostile invaders, and (the now inapplicable) sovereign indigenous tribes. "Dual citizenship at birth" is NOT mentioned as an exception or even possible exception. The one exception I can recall is an obviously politically-motivated piece from 1916 which is devoid of any case citation or discussion. And from what the historical record show, that article was ignored.
Again, what is your support in the case law or body of legal scholarship to support your surmised dual citizen exception to "native born equals NBC." You have none. That should tell you that your argument is pure unsupported opinion.
I presume you hold that the Supreme Court would rule along with the scholars that you note.
There will be no Supreme Court case in the absence of disagreement in the lower courts. And there is no basis upon which to posit such disagreement since the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that all "native born" persons are eligible for the Presidency (whereas naturalized citizens are not), while uttering not one peep about dual citizens being an exception. A person making the claim at the trial court that a native born person is ineligible due to being born here with a dual citizenship would have the same legal basis for making that claim as you: i.e., no case support; all opinion. That case would be dismissed on motion.
I would point out that the weight of scholarship, today, holds that born-abroad is not a barrier to NBC.
I'm not sure that can be said. If anything, we are observing here an increasing number of "hold on, now that I've reviewed applicable Court precedent, this conclusion that "citizen at birth means NBC" is doubtful in the case of persons born abroad. There is a very vigorous amount of debate and disagreement going on within the scholarly community about the eligibility of citizens born abroad.
By contrast, there is NO disagreement or uncertainty expressed within that same community about persons born here with dual citizenship.
Your attempt to compare these situations is ridiculous.