It applies to her grandson and she always considered that he could run for President.
And this exactly illustrates a point that I am constantly mentioning. Our Supreme Court does not decide issues based on law, they decide issues based on their own political disposition, how they feel that morning, and how they can rationalize it by claiming it is based on "law."
Change the makeup of the court, and you will change the outcome. A prime example is the recent ruling that GPS surveillance was unconstitutional. The court was Unanimous, but their reasons were all over the place. That they are all Unanimous is great. That they don't have a legitimate reason for being unanimous indicates that the ruling is more based on whim and personality than it is based on law.
This is an article I barely perused but something caught my eye in it.
https://connectakron.uakron.edu/law/lawreview/v39/docs/Aynes392.pdf
The author was a Dean at that law school at the time. He talks about how a Justice repeatedly misquoted Article IV, Section 2 by ONE WORD in order to make his case in the Slaughterhouse cases. BTW, the lower court in Wong talked about those cases and stripped away a sentence as Dicta.
I really can’t fathom why Gray pulled the number he did in Wong but it just goes to show you that the law will be decided how they want to that day and they will find a way to make it happen - even if it goes against another case that they previously decided a different way.