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.”

[DiogenesLamp]

When you have nothing to say worth saying, say it with more volume.

[Jeff Winston]

You understand very well that there is no such principle in English Law.

Of course there isn't. There's no principle that supports having a President instead of a Prime Minister, either.

So freaking what? We changed some things and kept a bunch of others. The definition of terms in the Constitution, as told to us by Framer Alexander Hamilton and by the US Supreme Court, is to be found in the English common law. "Natural born" means what it always meant.

As for the rest of it, for a while we denied our US citizens the right to expatriate just like the English did.

Of course you know all of this already. You just want to continue to spin complete bull****.

[Tau Food]

You are mistaken if you regard me as having any practical purpose in mind. This is entirely an academic discussion from my perspective.

That's helpful.

You are chewing on a problem (the constitutional meaning of the undefined term "natural born citizen") that is unlike a chemistry experiment. If you find yourself arriving at any kind of conclusion of which you feel certain, then you will know that either you don't fully appreciate the complexity of the problem or you need to think about it some more.

[Nero Germanicus]

Wong’s been cited in subsequent cases more than 1000 times and the holding has never been challenged in 115 years.
That’s a pretty good track record.

[Jeff Winston]

Playing the "Yes" or "No" game? Really?

Yes, really. I'm trying to bring things down to your level.

A "natural citizen" cannot lose his citizenship through neglect. Congress cannot describe requirements for him to be a citizen. Congress CAN set the requirements for statutory citizens.

In 1907, Congress pass an "Expatriation Act" which said that American women who married foreigners lost their United States citizenship.

Under this Act, a woman could be born in the little town of Lebanon, Kansas (recognized as the geographic center of the 48 States), to citizen parents whose parents were in turn US citizens. She could marry the Frenchman who had moved to Lebanon, never leave town in her life, and would have lost her natural born United States citizenship.

The United States Supreme Court upheld the law.

Now I agree that that decision was wrong.

But your claim, the entire point of this conversation, was that because the Supreme Court said that Congress could set conditions under which a person born a citizen abroad might lose his citizenship, "demonstrated conclusively" that citizenship at birth was not the same as natural born citizenship.

The claim, like virtually everything else you post, is bullsh*t.

Ergo... "Statutory" < "Natural."

40% of the Signers of the Constitution passed a law in which they stated that children born US citizens abroad were eligible to be President. So either your statement above is FALSE, or they were simply declaring what the law already was.

If your statement is FALSE, then by definition you are spinning bull****.

If they were simply declaring what the law already was, then "natural born citizen" always included the children born citizens abroad to US citizens, so your stupid definition is wrong.

Either way: 40% of the Signers of the Constitution say your words are bull****.

[DiogenesLamp]

Of course there isn't. There's no principle that supports having a President instead of a Prime Minister, either.

Go on... It sounds like you are learning.

So freaking what? We changed some things and kept a bunch of others. The definition of terms in the Constitution, as told to us by Framer Alexander Hamilton and by the US Supreme Court, is to be found in the English common law. "Natural born" means what it always meant.

We threw out the parts incompatible with Independent subjects , such as the feudal based law of Liege-Lord bondage as expressed in the Jus Soli principle.

Unfortunately, a bunch of English trained lawyers inadvertently brought it back.

As for the rest of it, for a while we denied our US citizens the right to expatriate just like the English did.

Resolved by statute sometime in the mid 19th century, but Many of the founders are on record as recognizing such a right. Probably it was those same English Trained lawyers who were mucking up the right of expatriation as well. It certainly sounds like their interpretation of the law.

[DiogenesLamp]

You are chewing on a problem (the constitutional meaning of the undefined term "natural born citizen") that is unlike a chemistry experiment. If you find yourself arriving at any kind of conclusion of which you feel certain, then you will know that either you don't fully appreciate the complexity of the problem or you need to think about it some more.

I am exploring the various tendrils of the issue constantly. I feel as if I acquired another piece of insight the other day when I responded to criticism of Vattel's SWISS citizenship. Being passing familiar with Swiss history, I suddenly realized that they preceded us in throwing off a Monarchy and becoming a Republic.

It then further dawned on me, what more fertile ground for the philosophy of natural law than Switzerland? Of COURSE Vattel would be Swiss. In no other nation would the fundamental principles of Republican government exist at that time. Everything else was a Monarchy.

That some people believed we followed English Common law is not in doubt. It is further not in doubt that some people believed we did not. The only people of consequence are the founders, delegates, and ratifiers themselves. It is what THEY thought which determines the meaning of the law.

Subsequent lawyers and courts have been mostly misled after Wonk Kim Ark because they interpreted the ruling too expansively. George Will makes a very good argument that it was never intended to encompass "anchor babies" or "birth tourism."

My theory of what is the truth is still a work in progress. I'm always looking for more data.

[DiogenesLamp]

Wong’s been cited in subsequent cases more than 1000 times and the holding has never been challenged in 115 years. That’s a pretty good track record.

We aren't going to get over this "numbers thing" with you, are we?

Pray tell, how many authorities pronounced the Earth as the center of the Universe prior to Galileo? Were they right?

How many courts have upheld Abortion "rights"? Were they right?

[Jeff Winston]

We threw out the parts incompatible with Independent subjects , such as the feudal based law of Liege-Lord bondage as expressed in the Jus Soli principle.

We threw out liege-lord bondage. We didn't throw out the Jus Soli principle, which says simply that those born in a country are members of that country. Has nothing to do with servitude. Has to do with who is, and who isn't, a member of that particular country.

[Jeff Winston]

Pray tell, how many authorities pronounced the Earth as the center of the Universe prior to Galileo? Were they right?

So you're "right," just because every real authority says you're full of crap?

Talk about your logical fallacy.

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes, really. I'm trying to bring things down to your level.

You are upside down and looking up.

In 1907, Congress pass an "Expatriation Act" which said that American women who married foreigners lost their United States citizenship.

Under this Act, a woman could be born in the little town of Lebanon, Kansas (recognized as the geographic center of the 48 States), to citizen parents whose parents were in turn US citizens. She could marry the Frenchman who had moved to Lebanon, never leave town in her life, and would have lost her natural born United States citizenship.

The United States Supreme Court upheld the law.

Now I agree that that decision was wrong.

Don't know that it is. The Argument of the court in MacKenzie v. Hare is that the woman voluntarily married a foreign man, and Congress simply regarded such as an "affirmative act" of renunciation. Presumably if one Marries a foreign man, one is going to go live in the country from which he is a citizen. If not, then why shouldn't the foreign man become a US Citizen?

This is not the same thing as doing nothing. (which is what Bellei did.) Show me an example of someone deprived of citizenship who was born *IN* America (yes, i'll use YOUR definition for this one) and living in a foreign country for the rest of his life.

[DiogenesLamp]

40% of the Signers of the Constitution passed a law in which they stated that children born US citizens abroad were eligible to be President. So either your statement above is FALSE, or they were simply declaring what the law already was.

They declared that they would be "considered as" "natural born citizens" As long as they didn't have a foreign father.

Get. It. Right.

Why on earth would you cite this act? It hurts you far more than it helps.

Either way: 40% of the Signers of the Constitution say your words are bull****.

No they don't, you are putting your own words in their mouths. Again, the straw man tactic, this time by proxy.

Though they be dead these many years, still they speak more intelligently and truthfully than you.

[Jeff Winston]

Why on earth would you cite this act?

You're kidding, right?

It is clear that they intended such persons to be eligible to the Presidency. So the completely destroys the claim that the Framers intended "natural born citizen" to mean "born on US soil of two citizen parents."

I don't know how you can even keep arguing in the light of that fact.

Except, of course, that continuing to push bull**** is simply what you do.

[DiogenesLamp]

We threw out liege-lord bondage. We didn't throw out the Jus Soli principle, which says simply that those born in a country are members of that country. Has nothing to do with servitude. Has to do with who is, and who isn't, a member of that particular country.

On the basis that the King OWNS everyone born on his soil!

Learn what you are speaking about!

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/03/from-feudalism-to-consent-rethinking-birthright-citizenship

[MMaschin]

It seems that a great many people seem to incorrectly equate 'Natural Born Citizen' to 'Born a Citizen'.

The problem with that, is that it's impossible, under the rules of Constitutional Construction.

Verba intelligi ut aliquid operantur debent.

"None of the words are without force and effect, except those superseded by amendments, unless such amendments are repealed. Except for the statement of purpose in the preamble, every word was intended by the Framers to be legally normative, and not just advisory, declaratory, aspirational, or exhortatory. Verba intelligi ut aliquid operantur debent. Words should be interpreted to give them some effect.". http://www.constitution.org/cons/prin_cons.htm

What that means is that you can't simply ignore the word 'Natural' when construing the term of art 'Natural Born Citizen'. It must have a purpose.

So, without any question, it is clear that 'Natural Born Citizen' CAN NOT mean 'Citizen at Birth', because it would be ignoring the word 'Natural'.

So, what does 'Natural' mean? IMHO, it means simply that, Born a Citizen according to the laws of Nature. I believe the Supreme Court has already construed it as such, will they review that? Possibly. But I know one thing for certain, they would have to completely change the rules for Constitutional Construction to rule that NBC means Citizen at Birth.

[DiogenesLamp]

So you're "right," just because every real authority says you're full of crap?

Fallacy of misdirection.

Talk about your logical fallacy.

Good boy! You got it exactly right!

[Jeff Winston]

Nonsense. The entire Western hemisphere, including every South American country except for French Guiana, uses the jus soli principle.

There is no inherent “servitude” in the principle that those born in a country are citizens of that country.

[CityCenter]

You have the patience of a Saint!

[MMaschin]

You seem to hold the belief that 'Natural Born Citizen' is to be construed to mean the same as 'Citizen at Birth', is that correct?

According to the rule of Constitutional Construction, Verba intelligi ut aliquid operantur debent, words should be interpreted to give them some effect.

If what you hold is true, what meaning is given to the word 'Natural'? Thank you.

[Jeff Winston]

Fallacy of misdirection.

Point out one GENUINE authority from early America who GENUINELY says it takes birth on US soil plus two citizen parents to make a natural born citizen, or to make a person eligible to be President.

There's not one.

Point out ONE genuine source where the Founders said they defined natural born citizen or Presidential eligibility to mean your BS.

You can't. There isn't a single such source.

In fact, 40% of the Signers of the Constitution approved a measure that said people who DIDN'T fit that definition were eligible to be President.

You are absolutely, 100%, full of crap.