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]

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."

You are either extraordinarily obtuse, or deliberately misleading. The act says "Shall be considered as" it does not say "is."

That is the FIRST point upon which you are absolutely wrong.

The Second point upon which you are absolutely wrong is the intentional omission of the fact that a resident American Father was required to make it work. A foreign Father was an absolute deal killer.

The Third point upon which you are absolutely wrong, is the failure of you to note that those specific words were repealed five years later, as if congress explicitly acknowledged that the earlier act was a mistake.

Three strikes and YOU'RE OUT!

[Jeff Winston]

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.

And by a genuine authority, I mean someone who clearly had the authority to speak for the Founders or Framers, who wasn't absolutely contradicted by them, or who was one of our top NATIONAL legal experts, at any time prior to 1850.

[Jeff Winston]

We’re talking about the meaning of “natural born citizen” in the Constitution.

Clearly the Signers of the Constitution didn’t believe it means your load of BS. That the Act was changed later is completely irrelevant.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

Obviously posting intelligent and scholarly links for you to increase your understanding was a mistake. You toss off some dismissive language having learned nothing.

[Jeff Winston]

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

This should be obvious in the first place. It is further illustrated by the fact that there are plenty of countries that use the jus soli rule, that have no king of any kind.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

I've pointed out several, you just ignored them. That's your usual tactic. Ignore and obfuscate.

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.

And yet again you post this lie. What on earth is the matter with you? Again, it said "considered as", not "is", again, foreign fathers disqualified the child, again, those specific words were repealed five years later.

Jeff, thy middle name is "obfuscateadnauseum."

[DiogenesLamp]

And by a genuine authority, I mean someone who clearly had the authority to speak for the Founders or Framers, who wasn't absolutely contradicted by them, or who was one of our top NATIONAL legal experts, at any time prior to 1850.

Already posted Bushrod Washington and Chief Justice John Marshall. Again, my two Supremes beat your English Lawyer. Posted Secretary of state James Monroe, Posted James Madison. Posted James Wilson, Posted Benjamin Franklin, and so on...

Not my fault that you have the attention span of a humming bird. (And brains to match.)

[jimsin]

AND a MAROOO?...let’s get behind TED..he’s the wave of the future!

[onyx]

You betcha!!!

[DiogenesLamp]

We’re talking about the meaning of “natural born citizen” in the Constitution.

Clearly the Signers of the Constitution didn’t believe it means your load of BS. That the Act was changed later is completely irrelevant.

Oh, the act wasn't so much changed as those specific words were retracted. It explicitly changed the language from "be considered as natural born citizens" to "be considered as citizens".

You are the goofball that thinks subsequent law can change the meaning of a constitutional term, so deal with the fact that they ripped out that terminology to describe citizens which they naturalized by this act.

Again, if your theory LIVES by statutory citizenship then your theory DIES by statutory citizenship.

Mine, on the other hand, is still consistent and unaffected by any and all acts of congress.

[DiogenesLamp]

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

This should be obvious in the first place. It is further illustrated by the fact that there are plenty of countries that use the jus soli rule, that have no king of any kind.

Christmas trees and Easter Bunnys have nothing to do with Christianity. Sometimes the legal inertia keeps going long after people have forgotten what started it in the first place. Perhaps if you had read the links, you might have had a better understanding of how Jus Soli was originally linked to Feudal Land-Bondage, but of course you would rather remain ignorant, because it is that darkness in which your theory can survive.

[DiogenesLamp]

This should be obvious in the first place. It is further illustrated by the fact that there are plenty of countries that use the jus soli rule, that have no king of any kind.

Oh, and I forgot to add: "Not any more." All of them did previously.

[Jeff Winston]

And yet again you post this lie. What on earth is the matter with you? Again, it said "considered as", not "is", again, foreign fathers disqualified the child, again, those specific words were repealed five years later.

It is clear that they intended the children born US citizens abroad to be eligible to be President, except for those whose fathers have never, ever been resident in the US.

[Nero Germanicus]

The Wong holding stands until and unless it is overturned. Obviously it continues to make good sense to contemporary era Triers of Fact, without exception. Republicans and Democrats have cited Wong as binding precedent; like the Republican Attorney General of Indiana in Ankeny v. Daniels or Obama’s Democrat attorney in Georgia who cited Wong in his brief but then nearly blew his case by getting indignant like a two year old and refusing to show up for trial.

You sure do like your non-sequiturs, Galileo, Roe and Wong Kim Ark, huh?
Wow.

[Jeff Winston]

Already posted Bushrod Washington and Chief Justice John Marshall.

Bull****. Neither said a thing about the meaning of natural born citizen in The Venus.

John Marshall also said there was ONE error in Bayard's book, and "natural born citizen" wasn't it. So Marshall agreed with Bayard on what it took for a person to be eligible to be President. Marshall contradicts you.

Posted Secretary of state James Monroe

Bull****. Monroe's administration affirmed James McClure was a United States citizen, and the sole reason given was that he was born in Charleston, SC. So James Monroe contradicts you.

Actually, I need to add him and Marshall to the list of early authorities.

Posted James Madison.

Bull****.Madison said that both parentage and place of birth were criteria that made for citizenship, but that place of birth was "the most certain," and it was "what applies in the United States."

James Madison, Father of the Constitution, contradicts you.

Posted James Wilson

Bull****. Wilson also said in order to be a "citizen" of that particular State (in the sense in which he used the word) you had to have paid your taxes in the past 2 years. Obviously he was talking oranges, not apples.

Posted Benjamin Franklin

Bull****. Franklin thanked somebody for a copy of Vattel. BFD. Franklin NEVER said it took birth on US soil plus citizen parents for Presidential eligibility or natural born citizenship. And his one close associate (Rawle) ABSOLUTELY contradicts you, and his other close associate (the Duc de la Rochefoucauld) certainly says nothing about parentage.

Franklin doesn't contradict you (since he never seems to have spoken on the matter) but his close associates do.

As does Thomas Jefferson's very close lifelong friend Phllip Mazzei, and so, so many other authorities.

, and so on...

Yes, and so on. The fact is, there doesn't seem to be any end to the amount of bull**** you'll spin in order to try and prop up your failed, BS Constitutional claims.

I said it before, and I'll say it again: You're a complete fraud.

[Jeff Winston]

Oh, and I forgot to add: "Not any more." All of them did previously.

So did virtually every country in the world, including just about all that have a jus sanguinis rule.

So your point is?

[DiogenesLamp]

It is clear that they intended the children born US citizens abroad to be eligible to be President, except for those whose fathers have never, ever been resident in the US.

No Jeff. "Considered As" does not equal "Is".

And Jeff, they REPEALED it. If your theory Lives by Congressional Whim, it Dies by Congressional whim.

[DiogenesLamp]

The Wong holding stands until and unless it is overturned. Obviously it continues to make good sense to contemporary era Triers of Fact,

A Simple lie is often desired above a complex truth. Newton was much easier to understand than was Einstein.

Republicans and Democrats have cited Wong as binding precedent; like the Republican Attorney General of Indiana in Ankeny v. Daniels

Citing Ankeny is an automatic slap across the nose with a rolled up newspaper. I would be EMBARRASSED to go near that piece of crap. You lose competency points in my mind from stooping to that.

or Obama’s Democrat attorney in Georgia who cited Wong in his brief but then nearly blew his case by getting indignant like a two year old and refusing to show up for trial.

Yet magically, it didn't matter. What ought to have been a slam dunk automatic finding for plaintiff became the victim of an Advocate Judge.

And you wonder why we should respect a system that ignores any rule when it feels like it?

The Courts disgust me. They are vile, and need to be ripped out of the Ground and replanted. They worship sophistry, and are ugly to people who value truth and logic.

And you think citing them will play a role in convincing me of something?

You sure do like your non-sequiturs, Galileo, Roe and Wong Kim Ark, huh? Wow.

Analogies. A distinction of which you are apparently unfamiliar.

A "non Sequitur" is more along the lines of "I can't drive because Germans eat ice cream. " Just look at any one of Jeff's arguments for other examples.

[DiogenesLamp]

Bull****. Neither said a thing about the meaning of natural born citizen in The Venus.

Just keep telling yourself that Jeffy Baby.

[DiogenesLamp]

So your point is?

Never mind. I've concluded you can't understand points. Just spout "talking" ones.