Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), was a case about a woman who wanted to vote. It had nothing to do with qualifications for POTUS. It does, however, address the issue of what a natural-born citizen is, but leaves open the question of children born in a U.S. jurisdiction to non-citizen parents. In my quick search, I don't see any subsequent cases that shed any more light on the subject. Relevant part of the opinion below:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. Minor, 88 U.S. 162.
Nevertheless, there may be an issue because Rubio's parents were not citizens at the time Rubio was born. WorldNetDaily's research shows a native-born citizen born to non-citizen parents may not be what is meant in the Constitution as a "natural-born citizen." http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/rubio-autobiography-proves-hes-not-eligible-for-vp/
There are also those who assert that a native-born citizen IS a natural-born citizen. It almost certainly would have to be decided at the SCOTUS level, if Rubio were to run for POTUS. (What the Immigration Service says is not a deciding factor.)
It seems to me to be a minor point that his parents became citizens two or three years after Rubio's birth in the United States. I guess more research will need to be done to find what was the the intent of the framers was in their use of the term "natural-born citizen". I believe in strict construction of the Constitution by ruling as close as possible to the original intent of the framers, not what a judge or Justice WANTS their intent to have been. My guess is SCOTUS would most likely allow Rubio to be a natural-born citizen for purpose of Article II Section 5 of the Constitution. This may in fact be what the framers intended, but SCOTUS is generally not strict in constructing textual Constitutional meaning, which is why I think they would rule in favor of Rubio, whether or not this was the original intent and understanding of the text of Article II Section 5 of the Constitution.
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens......”
You’ve mis-quoted the decision. The correct text reads “...The Constitution does not...say who shall be a CITIZEN...”
It then goes on to state that it was never doubted that those born in the US to citizen parents are CITIZENS....
They then say that these people (born in country to citizen parents) are the Natives or Natural Born Citizens. Pretty clear cut!
The Court continues by adding that while there is disagreement over what other circumstances of birth result in CITIZENSHIP, but there had never been a doubt that those born in the country to citizen parents, (Natural Born Citizens) are citizens.
It should be noted that the issue the court was addressing was whether or not Eliz. Minor was a CITIZEN. That she was born in the country to citizen parents (ie a NBC) left no doubt that she was a CITIZEN, and eliminated any reason for the court to continue to examine this aspect of the case.
The issue of being a NBC is only relevant if one is running for the office of President of the US. That statis/circumstance of birth carries no other relevance/cashet in US law except in that instance.
The 14th Amendment partially answered the question of who shall be a CITIZEN by including as CITIZENS those born in the country to legally residing non-citizens. It was passed in order to insure that the children of former slaves would not have to go through the process of Naturalization. The later decision in Wong Kim Arc applied the 14th Amendment to a non former slave person, and declared the US-born Chinese legal Resident-Alien WKA a CITIZEN......
Neither the 14th Amendment nor the SCOTUS decision in WKA has any bearing on the concept or definition of Natural Born Citizenship...
The issue of who shall be a CITIZEN is a continuing question and the understanding of what makes a “CITIZEN” is constantly elvolving and changing. The term NBC, however, has a set definition and settled meaning in the law except to those chasing/promoting some sort of an agenda.
Those that use the terms Citizen and Natural Born Citizen interchangably are attempting to confuse what is, and has been until Obama, and to a lesser extent Jindal and Rubio, a clear cut issue. They do the American public a great disservice in promoting their narrow agenda of trying to place a specific personality over the US Constitution/law.
“Shame on Ya!”