This week Marco Rubio sought to have a court complaint in Florida
against him thrown out, saying the argument “would jeopardize centuries
of precedent and deem at least six former presidents ineligible for
office.� (Last week he told reporters of Cruz, "I don't think that's an
issue.")

Rubio was born in Miami in 1971. But Rubio's Cuban immigrant parents did
not become U.S. citizens until 1975.

That’s convinced so-called birthers to conclude Rubio is ineligible
under Article 2 of the Constitution, which says "no person except a
natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President."

The questions arose in 2011 when Rubio was being talked about as Mitt
Romney’s running mate.

"It's nothing to do with him personally. But you can't change the rules
because you like a certain person. Then you have no rules," New Jersey
lawyer Mario Apuzzo told the Tampa Bay Times in 2011.

From the report:

Birthers rely on various passages to back up their argument. One is the
treatise The Law of Nations by Swiss philosopher Emer de Vattel, which
they say influenced the founding fathers. "The natives, or natural-born
citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens,"
Vattel wrote.

They also cite the U.S. Supreme Court, which in the 1875 case Minor vs.
Happersett, used the term "natural born citizen" in reference to persons
who were born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen parents.

"The arguments aren't crazy," said Georgetown law professor Lawrence
Solum, an expert in constitutional theory. But, he added, "the much
stronger argument suggests that if you were born on American soil that
you would be considered a natural born citizen."

For mo

http://tinyurl.com/jb4bsaz

- - - - - -

Pretty funny stuff...