I will expect that our frequent commentor, Historian Dude, will state that Senator Marco Rubio meets the Constitutional eligibility requirements to serve this great Nation as a Vice President , and ultimately, as the Nation’s first President of Hispanic heritage. After all, the Historian Dude has argued that Barack Obama, born in Hawaii to a British subject, and thus having dual-citizenship, is entitled to be POTUS.

But from American Thinker, the Rubio eligibility is a bit muddied:

Marco Rubio is on most short lists for the Republican vice presidential nomination.  The principal objection many conservatives have is whether Rubio is constitutionally eligible.  How should we view this issue?  At the outset, we need to dispose of the idea that the Constitution contemplates political parties nominating candidates to run for president or vice president.  It does not.  

for full article: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/the_presidential_qualification_issue.html

In a discussion with the smarter part of the JAMES family, despite our support of Sen. Rubio, it was argued that though he was born here, his parents were not yet citizens (same applies to Gov. Jindal), and thus Rubio is not eligible to be President based on prior interpretations, and the application of Vittal’s Law of Nations. As a underscoring point to this, it was stated to JAMES that the Muslim cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, was born here in the United States to Yemeni parents attending school here. Do we want to say that he is eligible to be the POTUS?

So, as we clarify the Constitution for a balanced-budget amendment, and put the election of the Senators back into the hands of the State, should we also clarify the exact wording needed to fulfill the intent of our forefathers in prescribing that the POTUS be a natural-born citizen of this great country?