Even under that law, if his mother's marraige were invalid, he'd still be a natural born citizen, as a single mother would pass along her citizenship regardless of age.
The 14th amendment grants citizenship to those born on American soil who have allegiance to the U.S.( SUBJECT TO) (Arks parents had legally immigrated to the U.S.)
Under the common law definition, when a person is present in a country, unless he is a diplomat or hostile invader, he owes allegence to that country when present in it, even if he isn't a citizen of it. It's in the Kim Wong Ark decision you allude to below.
There has been no court legal document released to prove obama was born in Hawaii. ( press releases are not legal proof)
The certification of live birth, photographs of which have been made public, constitutes prima facie proof before any court of law.
The Supreme Court has in a number of cases gave a definiton for Natural Born Citizen CHILDREN OF PARENTS WHO ARE U.S. CITIZENS
Only in cases where the child is born abroad. It has never required parental citizenship for a child born on US soil.
The Supreme Court in Wong KIm ARk declared Ark a native born citizen as his parents were not U.S. citizens prior to his birth.
It also made abdundantly clear in the dicta that he is a natural born citizen.
I defy you to find a single instance in which SCOTUS creates a distinction between native born and natural born.
Prior to the Wong KIm Ark the use of Native born and Natural born were to some degress interchangable, but the actions of the Supreme Court created a new interperation for Native born but did not change the meaning of Natural Born.
The Supreme court has NEVER gave a definiton for Natural born citizen that did not include birth to American citizens. We ,because of the Ark case now has Natural Born,Native Born and Naturalized citizens.