The third piece by Akhil Reed Amar, looks at the limitations on naturalized citizens for holding office, specifically the President. The Constitution states that only citizens born in the U.S. are eligible to be President of the U.S., as he says:

But those American citizens who happen to have been born abroad to non-American parents — and who later choose to become “naturalized” American citizens — are not the full legal equals of those of us born in the U.S. True, naturalized Americans have always been allowed to serve as cabinet secretaries, Supreme Court justices, senators and governors. And at the founding, anyone already a citizen could be president, regardless of birthplace. (Alexander Hamilton, for example, though born in the West Indies, was fully eligible to serve as president under the Constitution he himself helped draft.) But modern-day naturalized citizens are barred from the presidency simply because they were born in the wrong place to the wrong parents.

I found the article really interesting because it looks at the US constitution in a whole different way, which means that at the end of the day the constitution is not a perfect document the way people assume it is.This section of the article talks about the limitation of naturalized citizens. One of the main limitation is that they are not allow to become president because the constitution states that only those who born in the US are eligible to become president.In my opinion, I find this unfair because of many reasons one of then is that back this wasn't the case. Another reason is because nowadays they are naturalize latinos that are senators and congress of this country and this piece of paper which is the constitutions the perfect document people believe it is, limits their chance to run for the presidency. At the end of the day the constitution doesn't provide equality because their effort will no longer count if one day they want to become the leader of this nation.