The VP is required to meet the same eligibility criteria as the President.
As for Rubio, it comes down to a matter of interpretation, and one that's never been tested. The simple fact is, it's not the courts that resolve Presidential and Vice Presidential election issues anyway, that power is given to Congress, so in fact, eligibility criteria is whatever Congress says it is. Should they abrogate their duty (as happened in 2008 -- the matter should have least been investigated) there is no remedy that I'm aware of.
“The VP is required to meet the same eligibility criteria as the President.”
I’ve often wondered about this. It seems logical, since one of the VP’s two sole duties is to assume the presidency upon the president’s incapacity. And since Article II, section I says, “No person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible to the Office of President,” it follows that they wouldn’t be eligible for VP, either. Then again, the Constitution doesn’t say that. Like a lot of other sections, it leaves it to us to fill in the gaps.
So what happens if we elect a VP who can’t be president? Is that a paradox, or perhaps could we simply skip them over in the line of succession? I usually don’t like such academic questions, but I also don’t like just assuming VP and P qualifications are the same even though it’s not specified.
“The simple fact is, it’s not the courts that resolve Presidential and Vice Presidential election issues anyway, that power is given to Congress”
Congress is given nuts and bolts power, but SCOTUS has jurisdiction over “all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution.” They most definitely could resolve election issues if they saw fit.