I gave you two very prominent examples of Conservative Intellectuals supporting the "birther" argument. They are strangely oblivious to the fact that they ARE supporting the "birther" argument.
Coulter and Will’s arguments do not apply to Rubio, who’s parents were here legally, and even if the change they advocate is adopted, it wouldn’t apply retro-actively.
I believe their point is that it was never different. It has always been the law, people just misunderstood it. It wouldn't be "retro-active", it would have to be simply acknowledged that so many people are regarded as citizens despite what the law says and actually means, and that we will just have to accept the fact that this mistake was made by the legal system for a very long time. (Another example of why I don't put much faith in the "courts" getting things right.)
As for Rubio, in my opinion given the circumstances of his mother and father, and their stated intentions of becoming citizens prior to his birth, they meet the spirit of the Founder's intentions even if they don't quite measure up to the letter of them. I would give him a pass. He obviously possesses the most important characteristics of those which were desired in a Natural born citizen. Raised in the American experience, knowing no other nation as his home, he is as American as apple pie.
Sets a very bad precedent. Giving him a pass because he's "nice" opens the door to giving a pass to many, many others who may not be so "nice". Like electing a really good guy who isn't 35 yet. Only that is not as bad, because eventually he'll become 35.