If you had taken the time to read the entire opinion, you might have seen it for yourself.
Douglas, writing for the majority says...
"As in Mackenzie v. Hare, supra, these cases were sustained on the basis that the classification was reasonably devised to meet a demonstrated need. Distinctions between native-born and naturalized citizens in connection with foreign residence are drawn in the Constitution itself. Only a native-born may become President, Art. II, § 1. A naturalized citizen must wait seven years after he obtains his citizenship before he is eligible to sit in the House, Art. I, § 2. For the Senate, the waiting period is nine years, Art. I, § 3.
emphasis added
Douglas, throughout the opinion, draws NO LEGAL DISTINCTION between native-born & natural-born. I'm not sure how much more plainly Douglas could have put it. This is something even your cleaning lady can understand.
"... Only a native-born may become President, Art. II, § 1."
I asked my cleaning lady and she looked at her pocket Constitution and said that Douglas was clearly wrong there. His citation is incorrect as Article II & 1 of the Constitution, which is being cited here, clearly has the word "natural born" in it -- not "native born".
Now giving him credit here, she says that he may have actually meant that "native born" citizens who are also "natural born" citizens can be President, but no "naturalized" citizen can under any circumstances be President. It is possible that that is what he meant, isn't it???
“between native-born and naturalized citizens in connection with foreign residence are drawn in the Constitution itself. Only a native-born may become President, “
Of those two, yes the native born could be president.
(If they were also Natural Born)