If the argument that only a "natural born citizen" (born within the US territory, and born from 2 citizen parents) can be President, it will matter.
This was an issue in 1967-1968, when the self-described "brainwashed" George Romney ran for President.
The 14th Amendment extends citizenship to persons born on American-held soil, but George Romney was born in 1907 in Mexico.
Interesting citation in Wikipedia on this subject....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Romney_presidential_campaign,_1968
From the link:
“While Romney was born in Mexico, he was still considered to be a viable and legal candidate to run for president. His Mormon grandfather and his three wives fled to Mexico in 1886, but none of them ever relinquished their citizenship. While the Constitution does provide that a president must be a natural born citizen, the first Congress of the United States in 1790 passed legislation stating: “The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States.” Romney and his family fled Mexico in 1912 prior to the Mexican revolution. However, the Naturalization Act of 1795 repealed the Act of 1790[citation needed] and removed the language explicitly stating that the children of US citizens are natural-born citizens. As such, it is inconclusive whether Romney was eligible for the office of President.”
I have contended that the 1790 act verbiage - along with the dropping of that verbiage - provide direct insight into the intent and mechanics of what defined a “natural born Citizen”. The fact that it basically elevated jus sanguinis over jus soli meant that parentage was the considered the overriding, dominant factor of being a “natural born Citizen”, jus soli was secondary - just as the act shows. But, the removal of the clause in later acts indicates Congress likely understood they altered Article II, Section 1 incorrectly. And thus, they fixed it - by dropping the verbiage. Thus showing that the intent and meaning of Article II, Section 1 was born to US citizens within the borders of the United States.
Many have incorrectly asserted that the original 1790 act ‘defined’ natural born Citizen. It did not, it declared those meeting a criteria AS ‘natural born Citizens’. It layer upon those meeting the criteria (2 US Citizen parents) to be ‘considered as’ natural born Citizens. It did not ever say they ARE natural born Citizens.