Perhaps, but that is a political, not Constitutional question. The Constitution lays out basic requirements for the Presidency. But, beyond that, it is a political question for the electorate whether a candidate exhibits sufficient loyalty, intelligence and experience to become President.
I think Hussein is Constitutionally-qualifed to be President, but that is as far as his qualifications extend.
Thus, the fact that he didn’t is irrelevant to his legal standing. By the logic of the Founders in setting the natural born citizen requirement in the first place, the fact that for nearly half his life Obama COULD have pondered being a citizen of some other country raises sufficient concerns about his allegiance to the US as to render him ineligible to serve as president.
The FF could have very easily made it clear the dual citizenship was a bar to the Presidency by adding a few extra words to the Constitution. They did not do so, so we are left with the plain text of the Constitution, which is unambiguous as to the Constitutional requirements of the Presidency.
“The FF could have very easily made it clear the dual citizenship was a bar to the Presidency by adding a few extra words to the Constitution.”
They likewise could have very easily clarified what was meant by “natural born citizen” but didn’t. It has been left to the courts to decide what was meant. My claim is that any even-handed legal analysis would conclude that dual citizens are disqualified from being president.
The issue of fitness to serve is undoubtedly political. The issue of constitutional eligibility requires interpretation and hence—based on the precedent set in Marbury v. Madison—ultimately may be a matter for the Supreme Court to decide. It may have caused a great hue and cry among some voters, but the SC did not hesitate to get involved in 2000.