“The constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words ‘citizen of the United States’ and ‘natural-born citizen of the United States.’
By the original constitution, every representative in congress is required to have been ‘seven years a citizen of the United States,’ and every senator to have been ‘nine years a citizen of the United States’; and ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president.’ Article 2, 1.
The fourteenth article of amendment, besides declaring that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside,’ also declares that ‘no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’
And the fifteenth article of amendment declares that ‘the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any state, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.’
The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that ‘all persons born r naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.’ Amend. art. 14. In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422 , 5 S. Sup. Ct. 935; Boyd v. U. S., 116 U.S. 616, 624 , 625 S., 6 Sup. Ct. 524; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465 , 8 Sup. Ct. 564. The language of the constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law.
1 Kent, Comm. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. U. S., 91 U.S. 270 , 274. [169 U.S. 649, 655]
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said:
‘The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649
Wong Kim Ark was legally allowed to vote in the US.
Was Wong Kim Ark Constitutionally eligible to run for
and attain the office of presidency/vice presidency of
the United States ?
Yes, he would have been eligible. That was not the question before the court, but the court addressed it as part of the legal reasoning leading to their decision. I quoted from the decision earlier. It leaves no doubt whatsoever that he was a natural born citizen.