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.
With all due respect, Fuller is not “acquiescing” at all in his dissent. On the contrary, your misinterpretation of his remarks exactly reverses his meaning by not recognizing he was using an example how the majority opinion produces a nonsensical and irrational result known not to exist in actual practice and custom.
In fact, the majority opinion only said the plaintiff was a citizen of the United States and did not express a decision on whether or not he was a “natural born citizen” in either the statutory definition or the Constitutional definition. There is a difference between a statutory “natural born citizen” and the “natural born citizen” defined by Congress pursuant to the request of John Jay and George Washington regarding allegiance of the Commander-in-Chief and President of the United States. Consequently, what you describe as the “law of the land” with regard to an interpretation of the “natural born citizen” to permit a person born with foreign allegiance to serve as POTUS and Commander-in-Chief has no basis in the decision of this case which said:
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
In addition, it must be noted Justice Gray was appointed by President Chester Arthur. Since it has recently been revealed that President Chester Arthur was also ineligible to serve as POTUS and Commander-in-Chief due to his own allegiance at birth to the foreign sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, his appointment of Justice Gray to the Supreme court of the United States was illegal and a void act in accordance with the precedent case from the War of the Rebellion when the obligations of the Confederate government of the State of Texas were voided by the U.S. Supreme Court. This raises the question whether or not SCOTUS in a future decision must disregard the Kim Wong Ark decision due to the taint of participation of an unlawful Jusitce in addition to invalid assertions about English-Biritsh common-law. Far from being the law of the land, the taint of influence by persons having unlawful allegiances at birth to a foreign sovereign is more pertinent and vitally important than ever before.