SKU: 55924568452
rubber tree houseplant for sale

rubber tree houseplant for sale Buy Large Rubber Tree Bush Online | Large Indoor Plant

$19.69 $21.88
Save 10%
No.2 Bestseller on mivipcard.com >

Pay in installments of $5.47 with ShopPay, AfterPay and Klarna

Shipping Estimate
USA
  • USA
  • CAN

Ships within 48 hours · Estimated delivery Aug 7 - Aug 12

Promo Codes Available:

For Your Every Summer RSVP, with Code: SUMMER15

Description

rubber tree houseplant for sale Buy Large Rubber Tree Bush Online | Large Indoor PlantDescription Looking for a plant that brings authentic rainforest beauty into your home? Then we cant wait to introduce you to the magnificent Rubber Tree a stunning statement piece that will turn your space into a peaceful botanical retreat. Native to the Amazon rainforests, the Hevea brasiliensis gave the world natural latex. We're here to help you bring this tree into your home, where its impressive presence will definitely be a conversation

Description

Looking for a plant that brings authentic rainforest beauty into your home? Then we can’t wait to introduce you to the magnificent Rubber Tree - a stunning statement piece that will turn your space into a peaceful botanical retreat.

Native to the Amazon rainforests, the Hevea brasiliensis gave the world natural latex. We're here to help you bring this tree into your home, where its impressive presence will definitely be a conversation starter. With smooth bark and wonderfully glossy leaves, this beauty deserves a special (large) place in your plant collection.

Care 

Is a rubber tree a good indoor plant?

The rubber tree needs more space than many houseplants, but we believe it's absolutely worth it for the joy it brings! If you have the ceiling height, this beautiful specimen will become the heart of your room.

Are rubber trees hard to keep alive? 

Your rubber tree will thrive with consistent, loving attention to its basic needs. But it only needs regular care with steady temperatures, watering, and bright light. We promise it's not overwhelming! With our guidance, it will flourish.

This Amazonian beauty rewards dedicated care with years of green happiness, becoming a cherished part of your home and daily routine.

How often should I water a rubber plant? 

We recommend watering your rubber tree when the top 2-3 inches (5-8 cm) of soil feel dry. Think of recreating that perfect rainforest environment - consistently moist but never waterlogged. Check regularly whether it has just the right amount of moisture.

Where should I place a rubber tree in my house? 

Your rubber tree is happiest near an east- or south-facing window with bright, indirect light. We suggest avoiding direct afternoon sun, which can stress the leaves. Finding the perfect spot for your new giant friend is part of the joy! 

Can rubber tree plants live in bathrooms? 

Bathrooms can be wonderful homes for rubber trees! If your bathroom has bright light and enough space for growth, your plant will love the almost-tropical humidity. Make sure there’s proper ventilation, and you’re good to go!

What fertilizer should I use for a rubber tree? 

We recommend feeding your rubber tree with a balanced liquid fertilizer monthly during spring and summer. Think of it as providing loving nutrition for steady, healthy growth. Regular feeding helps your gentle giant plant stay strong and vibrant!

What does rubber tree plant care involve? 

Caring for your rubber tree involves providing bright indirect light, consistent moisture, regular feeding, and occasional leaf cleaning. We see plant care as being a beautiful relationship - the more attention you give, the more your plant flourishes!

Does a rubber tree need sunlight? 

Your rubber tree needs bright, indirect sunlight for at least 6 hours daily to stay healthy and happy. We always recommend filtered light similar to its rainforest home - gentle but consistent throughout the day. Direct afternoon sun can damage leaves.

Pet-friendly?

We care deeply about all family members, including pets. Unfortunately, the rubber tree isn't pet-friendly due to its latex sap containing ficin and other compounds. 

Are rubber tree plants toxic to dogs? 

Rubber trees are toxic to dogs, as their latex sap contains ficin compounds that can cause gastrointestinal upset and oral irritation. If your dog has ingested any part of your rubber tree plant, please contact your veterinarian immediately.

We're here to help you choose pet-safe alternatives if needed, ensuring both your plants and pets can coexist safely.

How toxic is a rubber plant to cats? 

The rubber tree is toxic to cats, potentially causing oral irritation, drooling, and digestive issues. If your cat has chewed on your rubber tree, please seek veterinary care right away. We understand how important pet safety is.

We can recommend beautiful cat-friendly plants that provide a similar impact while keeping your feline friends completely safe.


Factoids

What is the difference between a rubber plant and a rubber tree? 

The rubber tree (Hevea brasiliensis) is the authentic latex-producing species that grows impressively large, while the rubber plant (Ficus elastica) is its smaller ornamental cousin. We're proud to offer you the genuine rubber tree with Amazonian heritage!

Do rubber trees make rubber? 

Your rubber tree (Hevea brasiliensis) is the very species that produces commercial latex for countless products. So you're nurturing a piece of industrial history in your home - a plant that’s shaped the world (and looks great while doing it)!

Does a rubber tree purify air? 

Your rubber tree contributes to air purification through its large leaves, creating oxygen and improving humidity levels. While not the most efficient air purifier, it brings a piece of the Amazon's natural air-cleaning power into your space.

What is the lifespan of a rubber tree? 

With proper care, your indoor rubber tree can live for a truly long time, even several decades! Wild specimens can reach 100 years. We're honored to help you start this long-term relationship with a truly special gentle giant.

Do they still use rubber trees to make rubber? 

Hevea brasiliensis remains the world's primary natural rubber source, with plantations across Southeast Asia producing latex for tires, medical supplies, and so much more. It’s amazing that your houseplant shares DNA with the trees that keep the world moving.

What is the spiritual meaning of a rubber tree? 

The rubber tree symbolizes resilience, adaptability, and abundance - qualities we admire deeply. Indigenous Amazonian peoples considered it sacred because it represented the forest's generosity, while modern interpretations connect it to flexibility in life's challenges and personal growth.

Is the rubber tree fruit edible? 

The rubber tree fruit isn't edible - really they're seed capsules that explode when ripe, naturally dispersing seeds. Your indoor rubber tree rarely fruits, rather focusing its energy on producing those beautiful leaves we all love so much.


Buy a Rubber Tree

We'd love to help you welcome a magnificent rubber tree into your home! This stunning plant brings authentic Amazonian beauty and creates a truly special atmosphere in any large space. Our team is passionate about perfect matches.

Let us guide you through our video shopping experience to find your ideal rubber tree. We'll be with you every step of the way, from selection to delivery to ongoing care. Your space deserves this living piece of botanical history, and we're here to make sure it thrives under your loving care!

Shipping Notes
  • Free Standard Shipping on $100+ Orders to the USA.
  • Except Preorder products are shipped in 48 hours.
  • Delivery to the USA:
  1. Standard Shipping : 3-10 business days
  • If time is of the essence, please consider selecting expedited delivery for faster service.
Exchange/Return Notes
  • We offer a 30-day return/exchange service after receiving.
  • Final sale items are not eligible for returns or exchanges.
  • To process your return/exchange, please contact us at [email protected]
  • Please click here for more details>>> Return & Exchange Policy
SKU: 55924568452

Discover Niche Categories That Outsell rubber tree houseplant for sale

Top-Converting Item to Boost Your Average Order

4.7 ★★★★★
Based on 5 reviews
Sort
Highest Rating
Newest First
Oldest First
Product Reviews
A
[email protected]
Chelsea, US
★★★★★ 3
Good to excellent content - terrible publishing policy
Format: Hardcover
Lewis (Not "Flewis") wrote a decent text a number of years ago. It was then expanded to a companion volume (Analytical Sedimentology) with another author. The two nicely complement each other but the mind boggles at a price of almost $100 per each. The publisher has clearly made little effort to control the cost. Redundancy between the two volumes is excessive, hard cover rather than soft is used and, indeed, both could easily have been combined in one less pricey volume. A valuable resource to students and professionals has therefore been compromised by publisher, author or both due to ignorance, greed or stupidity. A terrible shame!
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on January 5, 1998
J
Verified Purchase
JMB1014
Boise, US
★★★★★ 5
An Excellent Introduction to Legal and Constitutional Reasoning
Format: Hardcover
This is an excellent introductory volume for people who feel confused by the debate over "original intent" versus a "living Constitution." David A. Strauss is a law professor at the University of Chicago. His book is a quick read (139 pages), with no notes, bibliography or other impedimenta - just an index. It's a very lucid explanation of legal reasoning and how the Supreme Court has followed this basic process over time. Hence the "living constitution" is really just an instance of the English common law tradition functioning normally. This book will teach many Americans how legal reasoning actually operates in practice. It is a common-sensical and conservative process that seeks at once to promote predictability and fairness. By and large, it has worked well. The phrase "living Constitution" has been denigrated by people who seek to turn back the calendar to a day when more "traditional" values were imposed by law. In so doing, they have invoked an historical fiction, the "original intent" of the framers of the Constitution. The myriad problems arising from this effort, if not its disingenuousness, have been discussed with insight and erudition by such excellent minds as Jack Rakove ("Original Meanings")and Akhil Reed Amar ("The Bill of Rights," and "The American Constitution: A Biography"), to name just two. The real point of this book, I think, is to explain basic legal reasoning to a mass audience. This does a great service. It also shows how naturally the common law evolves, how it tends to restrain judicial activism and yet to permit flexibility as times and circumstances change. As Dean Roscoe Pound of the Harvard Law School put it in his book, "The Spirit of the Common Law," the common law is "essentially a mode of judicial and juristic thinking, a mode of treating legal problems rather than a fixed body of definite rules...." This is a critical distinction. Some so-called conservatives insist that judges must simply apply the law like automatons, as if it were a "fixed body of definite rules." They then seek to enlist the founding fathers in declaring what those rules are, or how definite they must be. But as Dean Pound and centuries of legal history demonstrate, this notion is far removed from the truth, and remote from any useful notion of adjudication. All Anglophone law schools, lawyers and judges are engaged in the process Dean Pound discusses. The common law tradition arose in England over the course of centuries. We imported it to this country in part because it was workable and practical, and because it was brilliantly and systematically expounded by Chief Justice Edward Coke in the 17th century and by Lord William Blackstone shortly before the American Revolution. No one would suggest that the common law tradition means the law is the captive of judges' subjective whims. Such an assertion would have sounded ludicrous to the English as well as to the founders. But as Strauss - and volumes of legal history - unsurprisingly demonstrate, the common law tradition is the key to constitutional interpretation. The common law is an inherently conservative instrument. It evolves incrementally. Those who complain about the "living Constitution" argue that judges merely rule according to their subjective prejudices. They contend that it is the legislative branch that should be charged with interpreting the Constitution. Of course, all three branches of government must interpret the Constitution from time to time. But the legislative branch should not have the last word in determining whether its own enactments meet constitutional scrutiny: To borrow from Chief Justice Coke, no one (including the legislature) may be the judge of his own cause. The function of determining whether legislation conforms to the Constitution has been and still is wisely confided to the courts, which by virtue of centuries of practice (as reflected in published opinions) have substantial expertise in the area and are independent. One also hears complaints that judges are insulated from reality. But courts are not insulated - they are independent. And they are independent precisely so they are not subject to being influenced by lobbyists or terrified by a challenger in a primary election. To show how the common law works, Strauss discusses the evolution of constitutional thought in relation to two major issues: freedom of speech and segregation in public schools. He explains how the "clear and present danger" test in freedom of speech cases evolved, implicating not just such considerations as the threat of imminent harm, but also that some kinds of speech have lower societal value (libel, obscenity, fighting words), while other kinds of speech have more societal value (great literature, political speech). Strauss goes on to discuss how Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was far less a radical overturning of an entrenched precedent, Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), than a logical step in the development of the law. In so doing, he uses an example from the law of torts, where customers injured by dangerous products originally were barred from suing the manufacturer unless they had a contractual relationship with it. At first, the fact that a product was inherently dangerous overcame the requirement of a contractual relationship. As it became harder to draw a line between ordinary products and those that were inherently dangerous, however, the old requirement of a contractual relationship was found to have outworn its purpose and customers were permitted to sue the manufacturer who had created a foreseeable risk of harm. Thus, in products liability cases, as in racial equality cases, the law evolved to meet the new demands posed by changed circumstances. Strauss shows the development of the law by discussing cases on racial equality decided after Plessy that gradually undercut the Plessy decision until it was no longer tenable. Strauss does what law professors do every day: teach the law by showing how it evolved. His explanation, however, is so concise and clear that it makes the discussion seem not just sensible but compelling. Thus we see that the law works. As Strauss points out, we never wrangle over some constitutional issues because they are cut and dried (you have to be 30 years old to be a senator) or because certainty is required (January 20 is the day the new president takes office, no matter how unstable the current domestic or world situation). Other provisions require more effort to interpret, but this is because the founders brilliantly provided that some matters could be spelled out specifically in advance, while others would have to be expressed in more general terms, which could be adjusted to changing needs and times (e.g., the "necessary and proper" clause in Article I, Sec. 8). Interestingly, Strauss does not consider amendments to the Constitution to be part of what makes it a living document, since the amendment process is so onerous, slow, and seldom used. He points out how some amendments merely ratified the status quo, or served to clean up outliers, resolved technical issues, or were ahead of their time. As he offers these judgments, which seem balanced and reasonable, he also explains some of the less familiar amendments in a way that will have readers raising their eyebrows and saying "Oh, so that's where that came from." At the outset of the book, Strauss sets out three objections to originalism: That it is often, as a practical matter, impossible even for professional historians to discover what the intentions were of various founders with respect to matters discussed in the Constitution. That even if an intent of the founders could be discovered, it would pertain to the understanding they had about their world: how does one go about trying to fit that understanding to our world? That as Thomas Jefferson pointed out, one generation is to another as one sovereign nation is to another. The world belongs to the living. The notions of people long dead cannot bind us in the present or future. Strauss correctly observes that the third of these objections is by itself fatal to originalism. The founders were not so impressed with themselves that they felt their "intentions" should be forever imposed on posterity. Had they been dedicated to such a dubious project, they would surely have done a better job of documenting their debates and compromises during the Philadelphia convention. But little remains of those deliberations aside from the notes kept by James Madison. The Constitution, moreover, reflects their understanding that the future could not be shackled forever to the time in which they lived. They realized that the slave trade, for example, would prove intolerable and therefore provided that it could be abolished by at least 1808. So was their "original intent" to permit the slave trade, or was it that the slave trade should be abolished? And what does this say, if anything, about their intentions toward the institution of slavery - a word that did not even appear in the Constitution until the Thirteenth Amendment was adopted in 1865? Most damning of all to the originalist position is what Thomas Jefferson said on the subject. In a letter dated July 12, 1816, to Samuel Kercheval, Jefferson wrote "Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." He added, "Let us follow no such examples nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own affairs." He even called for revision of the constitution at stated periods. While originalists would love to claim Jefferson as one of their own, his words - and indeed his whole life - prove that he was completely at odds with their approach. Men like Jefferson and Franklin, who were devotees of science, were fascinated by the progress men could make in trying to understand and improve their lives. Jefferson was an eager student of nature and did considerable experimentation with crops on his plantation. He famously wrote his "Notes on the State of Virginia" to refute the widely read claims of the French naturalist Buffon about the supposedly weak, degenerate, and insipid life forms to be found in the New World. The idea that such men, who were committed to the growth of knowledge, would seek to confine all future generations to the limited understanding they possessed of the universe in 1787, is worse than laughable. It can only be explained by the polemical purposes of those whose arguments for a regressive social order are so feeble that they have to seek refuge behind an imaginary "original intent" that they erect - as if the founders wanted their limited knowledge and often unarticulated, conflicting, or ambivalent intentions to restrict the great national experiment forever. Given the explicit language of Thomas Jefferson, quoted above, it is apparent that "originalism" actually belies and defies the express intent of Jefferson, one of the most eminent of the founders. It seems paradoxical but it was his original intent that his original intent should not govern future generations! Original intent also appears anomalously restrictive when one considers that the founders never contemplated the existence of an Air Force, though they expressly provided for the Army and the Navy. And ask an originalist what the original intent was with respect to the Second Amendment's use of the term "arms." The founders had no concept of assault rifles or machine guns, let alone nerve gas, laser-guided bombs, predator drones, or nuclear weapons. How do we impose an intention on them to assert what they could not have foreseen, namely, that ordinary householders in the 21st century should have a personal, constitutional right to be able to obliterate a small army in a matter of seconds, based on the founders' notions about the 18th century saber, musket or pistol? Likewise, the Eleventh Amendment says nothing to prohibit a person from suing her own state - just other states. Yet even "textualists" read an unwritten provision into the Eleventh Amendment because it suits their view of how "sovereign" the states should be. When given this kind of a taste of their own medicine, originalists collapse in helpless sputtering and exasperation. Exposed to Strauss' very sensible discussion, the concerns of originalists reflect opportunism and disingenuousness. After all, we should not expect lawyers and judges to become armchair historians, especially under the time pressures of litigation and in the face of hotly contested issues. We should not pretend the founders had some monolithic intent, least of all with respect to matters of which they had no concept. And as Jefferson pointed out, the relationship of one generation to another is like that of one sovereign nation to another: we cannot expect to bind future generations by the intentions of people who are long since dead. In short, there will always be those who resist change and those who welcome it. If you really want to see "judicial activism" at work, you will not find much of it in the common law tradition. A far better example is the recent decision - by the so-called conservatives on the Supreme Court - in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on May 18, 2010
B
Verified Purchase
Benjamin Douglass
Charlottesville, US
★★★★★ 5
An Excellent Read
Format: Kindle
The author talks about our constitution as a "living document" and expertly draws the distinction between this and the originalist interpretation as a "dead document."
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on October 5, 2018
F
Verified Purchase
Frederick S. Goethel
Bozeman, US
★★★★★ 4
The Constitution: A Living or Static Document
Format: Hardcover
There has been a debate over the past several decades on whether the US Constitution is a living document that should be interpreted according to current mores and standards or whether it is a static document that should be interpreted using only the meaning found in the original wording of the document. The author, in this book, makes the case that the Constitution is, in fact, a living document that should be interpreted by modern standards and by using principles of common law. There are examples given that, quite frankly, are very persuasive. For instance, if the Constitution were interpreted using original language, we would not have the freedom of speech that we now enjoy. A careful reading of the First Amendment will show that only Congress was prohibited from making laws that abridged free speech. There were no constraints on the states or on other governmental bodies. Whether or not you agree with the author on how the Constitution should be interpreted, this book will make for some though provoking reading and interesting discussion. The book was well written, fairly easy to understand and should be read by all who are concerned about where the Supreme Court is now and where it is headed.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on May 23, 2010
G
Verified Purchase
garynini
Birmingham, US
★★★★★ 5
Clear, cogent, and illuminating
Format: Kindle
Clear, cogent, and illuminating explanation of the difference between two approaches to interpreting the Constitution: originalism and the Living Constitution
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on September 18, 2015

recommand products

Sansevieria Zeylanica Snake Plant in 10-inch Decor Pot
26.86
White Ceramic Pot with Wooden Stand
23.79
Large Snake Plant (trifasciata)
20.96
Knox Cylinder Planter with Wood Base
22.34
6-tier Wooden Plant Stand
21.60