The author supposedly asked, “then why are there separate references to ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’ in the Constitution?”
Am I supposed to believe that Scalia doesn't know there is a difference between a citizen born and one naturalized? My daughter-in-law was naturalized a week ago. She is not eligible for President because she wasn't born in the USA. I find it incredibly hard to believe someone who claims Scalia doesn't know the difference between being born in the USA and being naturalized...
During the oral aruments of Nguyen, the attorney says that the naturalized term in the Constitution can include natural born citizens as suggested by Rogers V Bellei.
What is clear from the oral argument is that the definition of Natural Born citizen is up in the air.
It is interesting to note that when a case came up again discussing Nguyen..no mention was made of natural born citizen- perhaps because it was now the topic across the country.
It's not a matter of whether a naturalized citizen can become president. The question comes down to whether there are two classes of citizen (natural born and naturalized) or three (natural born, citizen at birth but not "natural born" and naturalized). Since there are two and only two jobs where that distinction matters, the president and vice president, I'm not surprised that it has never been clarified by law.