What difference does it make when the argument regarding natural born citizen got legs? It doesn’t! The facts speak for themselves:
1. Obama has indicated himself who his parents are. His father was born in Kenya and was a British subject. His mother was an 18 year old who appears to have been too young to confer U.S. Citizenship on her son under the laws at the time of his birth. Obama has admitted that he had Kenyan and British citizenship, and if he was legally adopted he may have also had Indonesian citizenship. It is a fact that Obama at birth had at the very least divided loyalties based on his citizenship if his parents really are who he has told us they are, and if he was not born in the U.S. he may not have had any U.S. Citizenship at birth.
2. There are many questions surrounding his original long form birth certificate and his COLB, his certification as a Democratic candidate, his adoption records, his school records, his mothers marriage and divorce records, passport records for his mother and himself, his Selective Service registration, his social security records, his immigration record, etc. These questions can only be answered through the release of the records. Obama has refused to release any of these records to the public. Even the COLB was shown to a select group of people.
3. All these issues were raised prior to his election via the electoral college, and his swearing in as president.
4. The term “natural born citizen” as used in the constitution with regard to the qualifications for president has never been more clearly defined. There are at least 4 court cases that may have set some precedent because they have addressed specific cases of citizenship, however, none of these cases specifically address the term “natural born citizen” as it applies to the the eligibility for the office of the president.
5. It doesn’t matter if previous presidents or vice presidents or presidential and vice presidential candidates had issues with regard to the “natural born citizen” clause because the argument has never been settled.
6. The issue that needs to be addressed is whether or not Obama ever was and is now elibible to serve as president of the U.S. That issue is still up for debate as proven by the very fact that it is still being discussed today.
It matters because we have a legal system based on precedent. If you want to interpret a phrase of the constitution, say "natural born citizen," a certain way, at a minimum you have to show that your interpretation isn't new, that it is consistent with how it has been interpreted historically.
The fact that NO ONE before Nov. 2008 was interpreting "natural born citizen" to absolutely require that both parents be citizens if the child is born in the USA pretty much proves that interpretation was made up in Nov. 2008, and hence cannot be valid.