Marco Rubio Eligible for President or Vice President? Inquiring Minds Want to Know

Senator Marco Rubio’s personal story is one of the true America dream. The son of Cuban refugees, he rose to be the Speaker of the House of the state of Florida, now sits in the U.S. Senate and is often mentioned as a future president of the United States, and perhaps a Vice President much sooner. So why ask the question, is Rubio eligible to hold one of the two highest positions in America? If what you read below is confirmed, Senator Rubio’s father did not apply for naturalization until Marco was four years old, which disqualifies this Rubio from the presidency or vice presidency. Inquiring minds are asking for clarification. So far no answers. Here are the details.

Asking Marco Rubio: Constitutionally Ineligible to be President, So Why Talk VP?
For Gulag Bound by Arlen Williams, published September 1, 2011

Contrary to the obdurate ignorance, crafty obfuscation, and outright deceit played out in the progressive saturated media and both tainted political parties, the presidential requirement of being a “natural born Citizen” is clear. (The word, “Citizen” is capitalized in this article as in the Constitution, because an American Citizen is this republic’s essential and Sovereign Ruler.)

By evidence of the use of that term at the time of the framing of the Constitution and by Supreme Court precedent since, a “natural born Citizen” is a special subset of American Citizen, for whom the following are all true:

➝ both parents were Citizens of the United States of America at his or her birth

➝ he is born in U.S. territory (edit: this could possibly be disputed as not a criterion, but that would be difficult)

➝ he has never given up his Citizenship (which would necessitate being naturalized to reinstall Citizenship, having forsaken any natural born status)

This has been treated in Gulag Bound’s, “‘Natural Born Citizen for Dummies’ v. Dummy v. the United States of America” and at the sites featured in that article. Eligibility attorney, Mario Apuzzo has also assembled the necessary explication of this in his August 21st, “The Rule of Law and the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause.”

Yet, for some reason in this electoral pre-season (idleness?) there is much talk of Marco Rubio as a potential Republican candidate for vice president in 2012. Why, we are told that just last night, author (and lawyer!) Ann Coulter showed her selective conservatism in gushing about just that idea to Sean Hannity, on Fox News. Citizen Rubio is an extraordinarily able U.S. senator, but can a vice president be elected who is not eligible to be president?

You see, Senator Rubio’s father was not a U.S. Citizen when little Marco was born, as constitutional patriot, CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) points out.

And the answer is no, by courtesy (and foresight) of the framers of the Constitution’s 12th Amendment, which ends, “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”

Oh, “but no.”

Also just yesterday, Sam Sewell, of the blog, The Steady Drip, not only mused about this subject, but did something about it.

My [Sam Sewell] email to Marco Rubio – Are you eligible or not?

I have been defending Marco on conservative forums. The complaint is that Marco has not overtly offered any opinion on whether or not he is eligible for the office of Vice President ot President.

If Marco makes it clear that he sees himself as not eligible it would undermine Obama’s presidency and his credability in 2012. He doesn’t need to say a thing about Obama.

His detractors are saying that he is deliberately avoiding the issue and that he is not being candid for political reasons. I don’t believe that.

So I am asking Marco to openly declare his opinion about his own eligibility to be Vice President or President.

Below is some history on the issue and the opinions offered in a senate hearing in 2008:

On April 10, 2008, Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced a resolution expressing the sense of the U.S. Senate that presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was a ‘natural born Citizen,’ as specified in the Constitution and eligible to run for president. Sen. McCaskill knew Obama was not a natural born citizen, that’s why she introduced this bill — dressing it up to look like it was in Sen. John McCain’s cause.

It was during the bill’s hearing that Sen. Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the following statement:

“Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen,” said Leahy. “I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the Senate.”

At a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 3, Leahy asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal judge, if he had doubts that McCain was eligible to serve as President.

“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied.

“That is mine, too,” said Leahy.

What’s interesting here is that Sen. Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary, confirms that a “natural born” citizen is the child of American citizen parents.

Parents — that’s two. That’s BOTH parents.

Every time the words, “citizen” and “parent,” are used by Sen. Leahy and Sec. Chertoff, the plural case, “citizens” and “parents,” is used. The plural case is the operative case.

And so, fellow Floridian Sam is asking that man if he really understands, about his ineligibility.

However, another eligibility activist informs we have already been given a wrong answer by a media aide to Senator Rubio. So one Citizen defender of the Constitution, Ms. Kandy Ricotta wrote to Mr. Borgos.

August 25, 2011

Dear Alex Burgos,

It is with great concern and disappointment that I read the article on WND this morning concerning Senator Rubio’s natural born citizenship. What alarms me is the following statement made by you:

Rubio’s press secretary Alex Burgos told WND the Senator’s parents “were permanent legal residents of the U.S.” at the time Marco was born in Florida in 1971. Then four years after Marco was born, “Mario and Oriales Rubio became naturalized U.S. citizens on Nov. 5, 1975,” Burgos indicated.

When asked specifically if Sen. Rubio considered himself to be a natural-born citizen, Burgos responded, “Yes.”

Sir, his parents being “permanent legal residents of the US” at the time of his birth does NOT qualify Senator Rubio as a “natural born” citizen. The very fact that his parents became naturalized citizens four (4) years AFTER the Senator’s birth, tells us that they were NOTUS Citizens (citizens, not legal residents) when he was born, and therefore, according to Article II, Section 1, Clause V of our Constitution, Senator Rubio is NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE VP/PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES! You MUST do your homework on this before you make any further blind statements! Save yourself, and especially Senator Rubio, a lot of grief, by truly learning and understanding the meaning of NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

I strongly suggest you contact and discuss this with the leading expert on Natural Born Citizenship, Mario Apuzzo, Esq. Below is his contact information, as well as his blogsite, through which you can familiarize yourself with his writings. I KNOW he would be most willing to communicate with you about Senator Rubio’s natural born citizenship status, if you so desire. Rest assured, Mr. Burgos…America is watching the outcome of this extremely important matter concerning Senator Rubio, so I would highly recommend that you address this and set the record straight now, rather than later.

Thank you, Alex, for taking the time to research this vitally important issue!

Kandace J. Ricotta

After these years of suffering under an apparently fictitious president, one may see reason for Ms. Ricotta to be emphatic.

After all, throughout his life, Barack Obama has shown himself a close ally of subversive Marxists andIslamists.  And now he clearly seems intent upon running America into insolvency — a globally dependent “failed state,” rife for ginned up revolution, as he further establishes by executive order, his structural Marxismof soviet-style, governmental councils.

And so, is it too much to wait in good faith with the expectation of finding perspicacity and integrity in Senator Rubio? Will he himself, be a faithful public servant and just tell the politically fundamental truth — literally and reverently ”for God’s sake?”

And can America tell itself the truth?

Author and blogger, Don Fredrick wonders in yesterday’s email.

I must have added comments to 50 different Internet articles this week quoting both Congressman John Bingham and Minor v. Happersett and explaining that Rubio and Bobby Jindal and Obama are not NBCs. I do not understand how tens of millions of Americans can be so ignorant or unwilling to read. I can only imagine that many are thinking, “Well, they forced Obama on us, so now it’s our turn to get even.” That is not a good sign, if that is what they are thinking, but it is even worse if they are simply refusing to think.

Don Fredrick
The Obama Timeline

No, neither of Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal’s parents were yet American Citizens at the time of his birth; another full fledged Citizen who just cannot be Commander in Chief.

Perhaps America is simply too far into its Marxist instructed Hegelian fantasyland of wilful ignorance of the fact of truth, itself. Maybe our ethic is simply not Godly anymore, but the “situational ethics” of what we deem convenient. What “self evident truths?”


“Endowed” and the rest of all that?

Eligibility activist, Barbara sheds some of Abraham Lincoln’s optimism, “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”

But Lincoln never said you cannot fool most of the people most of the time — nor that most of the people will refuse to fool themselves.

Selective adherence to the Constitution for the United States of America must be put down, immediately. The trouble is, We’re “the People.”

End Arlen Williams article.


Conservatives love Marco Rubio, so readers, what do you have to say about this? I say it is impossible to be wide awake and aware 24 hours a day, but I’m glad, and appreciative that someone is. As Arlen said, we’ve been through this once now. Some of us will try not to let it happen again. My inquiring mind really hopes to hear some of your thoughts on this.

Posted by Maggie @ Maggie’s Notebook

  • I agree that both parents must be American citizens at the time of a child’s birth to make him or her natural born. Concerning Obama … his birth certificate therefore doesn’t matter, he is still a citizen. But his father not being a citizen when Barack was born rules him out as being qualified to be President. But never mind, since the Supreme Court won’t even hear the case. Face it, the only way to remove him now is to vote him out.

    • Pete Bennett

      Again, concerning Obama, as appearing in the below indicated link:

      “In 1961 if a 17 year old American girl gave birth in a foreign country to a child whose father was not an American citizen, that child had no right to any American citizenship, let alone the “natural born” citizenship that qualifies someone for the Presidency under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

      In 1961, the year that Barack Obama was born, under Sec. 301 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Ann Dunham could not transmit citizenship of any kind to Barack Obama.

      “ 7 FAM 1133.2-2 Original Provisions and Amendments to Section 301

      (CT:CON-204; 11-01-2007)

      quoted in, and from the article at:

      So, It may be even worse than we have been thinking??

      Sen. Rubio is also entrapped by the same beast. Why he fails to see and acknowledge this is bewildering. Does he not know that this WILL dog him the rest of his life and career (whichever ends first)if it is attempted to be ‘glossed over’?

      Now, I will plead ignorance of the factual nature of the above cited passages, but there is just as likely a chance that they are accurate as that they are not. Which, to even the shoddiest investigator, would seem to warrant looking into for ones own satisfaction, would it not?

  • Obama set the precedent. Marco is eligible.

  • I would need to see the birth certificate. We can’t allow Obama to set precedents for our great country.

  • I find the arguments of the left about Sen. Rubio Citizenship rather selective – not to say silly.

    The Constitution in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 specifically allows Congress to create laws that interpret or change the nature of “citizenship”. As such, the 14 Amendment and Title 8, section 1401 of US Code clarifies perfectly well the presently valid interpretation of “citizenship of the United States at birth”:
    “Anyone born inside of the United States”.
    Period. Argument closed.

    Now, to more realistic things. Marco Rubio is one of the few Republican politicians – together with Jeff Bush – that understand the meaning of shooting-oneself-in-the-foot, which is what we are doing if we don’t get the 68% of Hispanics that voted for Obama in 2008 down to at least 50-55%. This is the difference between 4 more years of Obama or a conservative President that can save the nation.
    We go a long way to accomplishing this if Marco Rubio is the vice-presidential candidate.

    We are running the first election 2012 ad anywhere for Marco Rubio.

    • Pete Bennett

      John Galt,

      The 14th Amendment was written to admit children of slaves, not all future Americans. Congress may have the ability to change the definition of citizen, but not the requirements of the Constitution. They did not define new citizens under the 14th Amendment to be Natural born, so it would seem that requirement still stands, regardless of the niggling jabs at it’s foundation.

  • What do I think? First off, I think WND is a nuthouse. They are personality and agenda-driven. Anyone who bases their philosophy on first principles can easily see the downfall there.

    It is not so cut and dried as the screamers would have us believe. This has never been tested in a court of law and there stand right now various sound interpretations of what the definition of Natural Born Citizen is.

    The birthers’ hatred of Obama is such that they would disqualify good Americans who were born here like Jindal and Rubio. I will at least give them credit for this little (and rare) piece of logical coherence.

    This is an emotionally-charged issue and the agenda-drivers would have us believe it’s all settled when it’s not. I post on this at Free Republic and got some excellent back and forth, full of links from all sides supporting their position. I had planned on using that thread and its links to do a larger post, but the agenda-meisters at “Free” Republic took it down with the cryptic “Too much cleanup” as the reason.

    I apologize in advance for blog pimping but I examined this issue back in May, to no definitive conclusion, since there can be no definitive conclusion without the question arising and being tried in a court of law.

    Go to the bottom and follow the two Volokh links. They are informative

  • Pingback: In Reply to Marco Rubio Eligible for President or Vice President? Inquiring Minds Want to Know | Maggie's Notebook()

  • My answer is too long for the comments section Maggie, so I’ve written it as an article.

    Can we move on? This issue was settled in 1889.

  • fettpett

    All cases pertaining to the 14th amendment (“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”) and citizenship since United States v. Wong Kim Ark have ruled that person’s born on US soil are citizens.

    It’s cut and dry. Rubio is eligible, there is no debate on the issue period. He was born in Miami, FL in 1971.

    There are different arguments about Obama’s birth and eligibility than Rubio’s.

    • kyle rolfes

      different qualifications for prez vs citizen