Manifestly wrong.
1. The known meaning of the Constitution trumps any bad precedent. But...
2. Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark stated he was a "native born citizen" and he clearly know what a "natural born Citizen" referred to in the Constitution. That is ostensibly why he stopped short, since there hereditary right was not referred to in "native" but was in "natural."
A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth. U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html
Perhaps, you could provide a link to the law that states that a person gives up his status as a natural born citizen if he for any point in his life is considered a dual citizen.
Let’s be sure to add that Justice Gray was surely doing Chester Arthur’s bidding in the Ark case, since Arthur had “natural born” issues of his own and it was he who appointed Gray to the court.