Skip to comments.Dershowitz: Ted Cruz one of Harvard Law’s smartest students
Posted on 05/09/2013 7:44:25 PM PDT by Nachum
Famed Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz ranks Sen. Ted Cruz among the schools smartest students, adding that the Canada-born Texan can run for president in 2016.
Cruz was a terrific student, Dershowitz told The Daily Caller. He was always very active in class, presenting a libertarian point of view. He didnt strike me as a social conservative, more of a libertarian.
He had brilliant insights and he was clearly among the top students, as revealed by his class responses, Dershowitz added.
Dershowitz also gave a high estimate of Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren who has decidedly different political views than Cruz.
Dershowitz says he and Cruz would often debate issues presented in Dershowitzs criminal law class. Cruzs views were always thoughtful and his responses were interesting, the law professor explained. I obviously disagreed with them and we had good arguments in class. I would challenge him and he would come up with very good responses.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
But he’ll never beat out barry.
Dershowitz wouldn’t say this if it wasn’t true.
He’s a FLAMING lib after all.
Canadian and Cuban citizen Rafael Edward Cruz.
My democrat neighbor assures me this is true.
He shouldn't, as he wasn't actually born in this country, but who cares what the Framers said anyway?
And no, I don't want to argue about it. I'm blue in the face from the last four years of that.
IT’S Called “HAVING A BACKBONE”
Oh I believe it too he is soooo egocentric.
The GOP has plenty of:
But Cruz is a conservative who attacks brilliant. He doesn’t just make noise, he goes for the libs jugular. He is their worst nightmare. He is what I been asking for in my comments here for a long time, a very smart and tough fighter to make my day (better)
“American citizen” is not the constitutional qualification to hold the office of president in the United States.
I know, but Cruz is an American citizen, not a Cuban or Canandian citizen.
actually a pragmatic libertarian would not be a bad choice for the pubs in the next election. I have trashed them as much as anyone but only because of the rules-based dogma espoused by people like Ron Paul on foreign policy & 9/11. I could accept a libertarian with rational foreign policy views.
At the time of his birth Rafael was not an American. Rafael Edward Cruz is an ambitious foreigner.
I’m not going to get into a big debate, but the requirement for President and VP, of course, is that he must be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. That has long been understood to mean a child of two American citizen parents born on American soil/territory. Neither Cruz nor Rubio qualifies as a natural born American citizen.
You’re a broken record.
Thanks for your opinion of Ted Cruz.
Sort of new hear aren’t you?
Canadian and Cuban citizen Rafael Edward Cruz.
I hope you’re not here to focus on trying to destroy the true conservatives in the Republican party.
I noticed your FR join date is March 15, 2013—Mama always warned be about the Ides of March. Betrayal comes in many forms.
“Canadian and Cuban citizen Rafael Edward Cruz.”
You joined FR on March 15. Do you have a problem with Cruz? Maybe you would be happier on a liberal Democrat forum where you could dump on Cruz every day.
Tell who you like.
Neither does Obama. Its extremely tempting to say whats good for the goose is good for the gander.
He joined March 15. I predict he won't be around long. IBTZ, whenever it happens. Mark this one on your calendar.
S/he sure is for such a new one, kinda scratchy screechy. LOL!
Of course Obama doesn’t qualify of his father is who he claims! Many of us, including me, have been screaming that fact from the rooftops since BEFORE the 2008 elections!
Should be, “IF his father is who he claims...”
Proof reading is always our friend.
Cruz should run.
Did he hold either a Canadian or Cuban passport? Did he undergo a naturalization process to become an American citizen? If the answer is NO (which it is) then he is a natural born citizen.
Since Mar 15, 2013
Do you like movies about Gladiators?
Unlike the current President whom I doubt could pass anything without cheating, lying, or changing the books.
Not according to anyone who has studied con law.
He was definitely an American. His mother was an American of sufficient age to pass on citizenship at the time of his birth, even though his father was not a citizen and they were on foreign soil.
Natural born citizen is, however, a different matter.
Not the least bit surprising. Ted Cruz is as sharp as a scalpel.
Hawk, that’s bunk.
The Founders made a distinction between the requirements for senators and representatives (citizens) and president and vice-president (natural born citizen). They did this for a very distinct and important reason—to prevent someone with dual or duplicitous loyalties from assuming the office of president.
If you or anyone else doesn’t like the Constitution, convene a convention and change it (which would be a very, very bad idea). It says what it says, and natural born citizen means the same thing now as it did when the Founders wrote it in our Constitution, regardless of how many people choose to ignore, deny or pervert its meaning.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
88 U.S. 162
Minor v. Happersett
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," [n7] and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
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 [p168] 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. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
Cruz and Obama were born foreigners. The country of the father is that of the son.
It was always thus.
Just because Rafael Cruz speaks a message that is sweet to the ears of some Conservatives it does not change the fact he was born a Canadian and a Cuban.
And what exactly do you mean "sweet to SOME conservatives"? You don't like what he has to say? What issues do you disagree with him on?
I ask again, who do you like?
Rafael Cruz and Barack Obama are not natural born citizens. This is a fact.
There’s only one way to save the Republic. Return to the 1787 Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Once upon a time that would have been a non- sequitur. But that was back when we followed the Constitution.
See this table.
|Your Date Of Birth||Citizen Parent||Residence Required Of Your Parent||Residence Required Of You|
|Before 05-24-34||Both||1 parent resided in U.S.||None|
|Only 1||USC parent resided in U.S. prior to your birth for one or more periods of time totaling at least 1 year||None|
|On/after 05-24-34 and before 01-13-41||Both||1 parent resided in U.S.||None|
|Only 1||USC parent resided in U.S.||2 yrs physical U.S. presence between ages 14-28**
5 yrs U.S. residence between ages 13-21**
|On/after 01-13-41 and before 12-24-52||Both||1 parent resided in U.S.||None|
|Only 1||USC parent resided in U.S. 10 yrs, at least 5 after parent's age 16.||2 yrs physical U.S. presence between ages 14-28, except if born 10/10/52 or after **
5 yrs U.S. residence between 13-21 yrs.**
|On/after 12-24-52 and before 11-14-86||Both||1 parent resided in U.S.||None|
|Only 1||USC parent with 10 yrs physical presence in U.S. prior to your birth, at least 5 yrs. after parent's age 14||None|
|On/after 11-14-86||Both||1 parent resided in U.S.||None|
|Only 1||USC parent physically present in U.S. 5 yrs, at least 2 yrs. after parent's age 14||None|
|Children under age 18 may qualify for automatic or expedited naturalization if they have at least 1 USC parent. This can eliminate green card residency and physical presence requirements. It may eliminate the green card requirement itself. Automatic: Child has a green card. Expedited: Child has USC parent or grandparent who has been physically present in the U.S. for 5 years, 2 which were after parent's or grandparent's age 14.
** Residence of the child is no longer required. If a child lost citizenship by not meeting the residency requirement, the child can reinstate citizenship. However, children who reinstate citizenship cannot pass citizenship on to their children born after citizenship was lost.
*Data obtained from C. Gordon and S. Mailman, Immigration Law and Practice [Appendix A, A.1 (a)] and U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual, Vol.8, Exhibit 214.1, 1967, and updated by Joseph Grasmick, Esq.
And that table only applies to “US Citizenship” not “Natural Born Citizenship”.
A gift for you.
I don’t accept gifts from trolls.
Hey! That's my birthday you're talking about, thank you very much!