Dershowitz: Ted Cruz one of Harvard Law’s smartest students

Daily Caller ^ | 5/9/13 | Charles C. Johnson

[Nachum]

Famed Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz ranks Sen. Ted Cruz among the school’s 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 didn’t 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 Dershowitz’s criminal law class. “Cruz’s 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.”

[greeneyes]

Well, to use that logic another way. Congress only has the power to address naturalization of citizens. They have at various times addressed the issue of citizenship for children born in circumstances that did not include 2 citizen parents with birth on USA soil.

Looking at it this way the children born to a citizen parent on foreign soil must be naturalized citizens, because Congress has passed laws regarding them.

Minor v Happerstat notes that there is agreement that children born of 2 citizen parents on American soil are natural born citizens. It also notes that there are doubts as to the status of those born on foreign soil. It was not necessary to resolve those doubts for the case in question.

Note that Congress at one time attempted to define natural born citizens and address the issue of a citizen giving birth on foreign soil. Some people in Congress thought that being born in the country trumped all else. Others challenged that, claiming that a child born to citizen parents should be a citizen no matter where he was born.

A few years later a Supreme Court Case pretty much nullified this law, and Congress passed a similar law, but dropped the term natural born citizen and used instead, the word citizen.

Fact of the matter is the issue has yet to be resolved definitively by any court, which is acknowledged in State Department instructions to diplomatic personnel responsible for assisting people in other countries regarding their own status for citizenship.

These documents also note that it was also not definite that natural born citizenship acquired by statute was truly eligible for the presidency.

Now reasonable arguments can be made on both sides of this issue. Fact is it could legitimately be called a gray area. While John Jay may have had a specific in mind, that didn't need elaboration in his letter regarding the requirement, I have not seen anything where he actually defined it.

Instead of arguing over it, maybe it would be a good idea to decide exactly what the definition should be, and pass a constitutional amendment adopting said definition.

[Jeff Winston]

You go to great lengths to deny what I just said, which is 100% accurate.

If you think you have a case, argue it in the courts. You’ll get thrown out on your @ss. There is not a single real Constitutional authority - conservative, liberal or in between - in the entire country who agrees with you.

Not one.

[edge919]

Sorry, but the Supreme Court affirmed that Minor was a precedent on presidential elgibility in Luria v. United States. Conspicuously absent is any mention of Wong Kim Ark, despite being only 15 years prior to the Luria decision.

[FreedomPoster]

He is simply not a foreigner. Don’t be dumb.

[Jeff Winston]

Sorry, but the Supreme Court affirmed that Minor was a precedent on presidential elgibility in Luria v. United States.

Yes, but only to say, "Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency."

So to say Luria in any way says that Minor backed up your completely bogus "definition" of natural born citizen is totally dishonest. It's absolute BS.

Conspicuously absent is any mention of Wong Kim Ark, despite being only 15 years prior to the Luria decision.

Gee... do ya think that might be because Luria didn't have to do with someone who was born a citizen in the United States, like Wong was, but who was a naturalized citizen?

Once again: Birther makes claims. Claims are total BS.

It's a very familiar two-step process.

[Jeff Winston]

He is simply not a foreigner. Don’t be dumb.

It's what birthers do.

[ObligedFriend]

Billy, edge919 shows us how delusional you really are.

[ObligedFriend]

Billy, close down fogbow. Why don’t you make quilts.

[Atlas Sneezed]

>>Fact is it could legitimately be called a gray area.

We agree.

>>Instead of arguing over it, maybe it would be a good idea to decide exactly what the definition should be, and pass a constitutional amendment adopting said definition.

Indeed. And perhaps to do something about anchor babies that way as well.

[Jude in WV]

I’m confused Is Jeff Winston on Free Republic the same as William Bryant of Fogbow?

[Texas Fossil]

Here is a good discussion of the deliberation of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 (of which I have a copy of Madison's notes)

http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/Citizenship/history.htm

Madison did not record any debate on this clause. Instead, on August 31, the Convention referred various issues, including presidential qualifications and the method of electing the President, to a Committee of Eleven, which had one member from each state.(31) This committee presented its report on September 4, 1787.(32) The words “natural born citizen” first appeared in this report. Indeed, these words appeared in a form that is identical to the final version in the Constitution: “No person except a natural born citizen ... shall be eligible to the office of President.” The record of the Constitutional Convention provides no explanation for the introduction of the words “natural born.” On September 7, “The section requiring that the President should be a natural-born citizen &c, & have been resident for fourteen years, & be thirty five years of age, was agreed to nem. con.”(33)

There is a reasoned discussion of how a letter by John Jay might have have influence on the final wording.

--

In that discussion it refers to The Naturalization Act of 1790 which states in part:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large/Volume_1/1st_Congress/2nd_Session/Chapter_3

And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea,Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, &c. or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:Exceptions. Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.

This act of 1790 was replaced by the act of 1795 and the wording of "natural born citizen" was removed. This tells me that those in government at that time understood clearly the meaning of the phrase and it's significance in insuring undivided loyalty.

[DiogenesLamp]

Political question doctrine dictates that the SC will never touch the eligibility of the President. It’s too late for the SC to rule in your favor. Chester A. Arthur and Obama have both failed the meet the two parent test. The SC will never address this issue.

And this is why I grade you at the intellectual level of Kansas58. Your argument that "nobody gives a D@mn" is not equivalent to "I have a correct understanding of Article II."

The Nazis didn't care that the Jews were the rightful owners of the property they stole. Offenses committed by "the state" cannot be justified merely because they are "the State."

[DiogenesLamp]

RE “I like him so much I might even shut up about the fact that he isn't eligible. Nowadays, what do the laws mean anyway?”

Cruz is perfectly eligible as a Senator. The topic being discussed is whether he is eligible for President. Given that he wouldn't be a citizen except for the fact that Congress passed a law back in 1934, he isn't.

You can't be a "natural citizen" if you have to have a law which grants you "conditional citizenship."

[DiogenesLamp]

Per the INA, Ted Cruz acquired citizenship at birth.

Per a 1934 law. (and subsequent modifications of it.) Had Congress not passed this law, Cruz would not be a citizen at all. A "Natural born citizen" doesn't need a law to be a citizen.

If he wants to run he can. No state will deny him a place on their primary or general-election ballot, any Electoral College votes he wins will be awarded to him.

If you mean the system is broke, then I agree with you. People simply don't care about fidelity to our system of governance anymore.

Everything else is just NBC-Birther noise.

It is the truth. It only sounds like "noise" because people like you have your hands so firmly clasped over your ears.

[DiogenesLamp]

I generally ignore your "Wall of Text" but this part caught my eye.

Lysander Spooner, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, pg. 119 (1845)

“Every person, then, born in the country, and that shall have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States, is eligible to the office of president.”

Once again, every person born in the country. No mention of parents.

Or Diplomats.

[HawkHogan]

You don’t understand the political question doctrine, and you are now inciting Nazi references to reinforce your mistaken belief about the Constitution.

[DiogenesLamp]

You don’t understand the political question doctrine, and you are now inciting Nazi references to reinforce your mistaken belief about the Constitution.

I understand fine. It just doesn't operate with a broken system. The Courts are incompetent and infiltrated with non-American principles since Roosevelt. The whole system needs to be demolished and rebuilt. The point remains, the topic being discussed is not what the courts think, it's about what is the ACTUAL truth. On that score, you've racked up zero points.

The Courts are irrelevant at this point. We are heading for a social/economic crash. A nation can only survive so much idiocy for so long.

[greeneyes]

Indeed. And perhaps to do something about anchor babies that way as well.

**********************************************************

Absolutely.

[sickoflibs]

RE “I like him so much I might even shut up about the fact that he isn't eligible. Nowadays, what do the laws mean anyway?”
.....
Cruz is perfectly eligible as a Senator. The topic being discussed is whether he is eligible for President.

Discussed by who?? You and who?

He is legally a Senator and kicking butts.

[Jeff Winston]

Billy, edge919 shows us how delusional you really are.

First off, you have no evidence at all to even suggest that my name is "Billy." And yet you keep posting all this BS about a particular person, as if you've somehow figured out that I'm him.

You're simply a nutjob. And no one who matters agrees with your BS theory.

And I mean, LITERALLY, NOBODY in the ENTIRE UNITED STATES, who really matters.

Not one damn person in the entire country of 310 million.

Not our courts, who have UNANIMOUSLY dismissed these frivolous BS lawsuits.

Not the US Supreme Court, which has dismissed without comment every single lawsuit alleging it takes birth on US soil plus two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.

Not even one of our 535 members of Congress.

Not any major commentator on radio, TV, newspaper or magazine.

Not any significant Constitutional organization, such as National Review, Heritage Foundation, or Hillsdale.edu.

No one who matters. In the entire country.