Did the 5th Amendment repeal the natural-born citizen requirement for POTUS?

[Californiadreaming]

Basically, this article makes an argument that the 5th Amendment (in its current interpretation) has already implicitly repealed the natural-born citizen requirement for the U.S. Presidency:

http://repository.jmls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1287&context=lawreview

As for my own thoughts on this, I would say Yes. After all, if one embraces the idea of a "Living Constitution" (as I myself lean in favor of doing), then I see absolutely no reason as to why exactly earlier parts of the U.S. Constitution should be incapable of being implicitly repealed by later parts of the U.S. Constitution.

Anyway, what exactly are your own opinions on this issue?

[Californiadreaming]

Even if one argues that the natural-born citizen clause would be subjected to strict scrutiny under the 5th Amendment, I think it's fairly easy to argue that it meets strict scrutiny.  It certainly meets the "narrowly tailored" prong of the strict scrutiny test. Having a president who has never held any foreign allegiance (or has demonstrated his allegiance via siding with this county in the tax revolt) is a compelling interest in my opinion.

The problem is, though, that some natural-born U.S. citizens have had foreign allegiance at some point in their lives. Heck, just take a look at Michelle Bachmann (who previously acquired Swiss citizenship)!

[Californiadreaming]

Indeed, could there be an equal protection issue here? After all, the U.S. Constitution currently allows natural-born U.S. citizens who previously had (and perhaps even natural-born U.S. citizens who have dual loyalties right now) dual loyalties to run for the U.S. Presidency but not naturalized U.S. citizens who previously had dual loyalties.

Frankly, what exactly is the compelling state interest in allowing this inequality to continue?

[Californiadreaming]

Indeed, could there be an equal protection issue here? After all, the U.S. Constitution currently allows natural-born U.S. citizens who previously had (and perhaps even natural-born U.S. citizens who have dual loyalties right now) dual loyalties to run for the U.S. Presidency but not naturalized U.S. citizens who previously had dual loyalties.

Frankly, what exactly is the compelling state interest in allowing this inequality to continue?

Also, out of curiosity--natural-born U.S. citizens who are currently dual citizens can nevertheless run for the U.S. Presidency if they meet both the age requirement and the residency requirement, correct?

[Californiadreaming]

A good example of the way the meaning of "due process" and "equal protection" have been stretched to the point of absurdity.

You mean by the courts or by me, though?

[Californiadreaming]

A good example of the way the meaning of "due process" and "equal protection" have been stretched to the point of absurdity.

You mean by the courts or by me, though?

the courts, legal scholars, etc.

Well, while I certainly respect originalists, I am personally more of a believer in interpreting the U.S. Constitution in ways which will achieve greater justice and fairness.