No they didn't. The applied statutory law in the guise of the 14th amendment, and their application of THAT is even subject to interpretation.
A citizen by statutory law is not a "natural" citizen.
You are wrong DL. Half of the WKA decision discussed the meaning of natural born citizen. That was a part of the rationale that led to their conclusion, and thus is binding on subsequent courts. The US Supreme Court could hear another case and overturn the WKA decision, but that seems a bit unlikely...
That’s your personal opinion but over the last 115 years, court after court has disagreed with your interpretation.
And, with specific reference to the eligibility of Barack Obama:
Purpura & Moran v Obama: Judge Jeffrey S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here.
The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin-Apuzzo