The principles of our form of Government lies more in Switzerland than it does in England. English principles and legal thought speak only of Monarchy.
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 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.”
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
You say he is a "natural" citizen, then you cite the man-made act without which he would not be a citizen at all.
So if Congress passed a law which said "Everyone born with blue eyes is a citizen", would this make them "natural" citizens too?
It seems you have a definition of "natural citizen" which is subject to the ever changing whim of Congress. It can mean one thing at one time, and something different later.
You do know what a "definition" is, don't you?
You add nothing but smoke to these discussions. You and Kansas58 have nothing useful to contribute and you would do everyone a service if you didn’t bother trying.
Well, first of all you are wrong. There are plenty of Constitutional Scholars who subscribe to that definition. Even the Heritage Foundation has a paper on it.
George Will has an article on it. Ann Coulter has an article on it. Herb Titus, Lawrence Solum, Edward Erler, and so on. (Not going to bother posting links. You will just ignore them.)
So now that you've been proven wrong, will you shut up? Not a chance. I expect you will just become more strident.
The column I linked above in comment #70 has some excellent points about what the Founders meant.
Yes, it’s about reason and knowledge of history and what our Founders meant by “natural born citizen” as distinct from “citizen.” A baby born of one or two foreign nationals on American soil is not a natural born citizen. According to the 14th Amendment, they are citizens. We need to revoke the “anchor baby” provision of the 14th A.
If it doesn't require the existence of a Congressional law which naturalizes you at birth, then you are correct. If your "birth" citizenship requires a law to make you a citizen, then you are not a "natural" citizen.
The concept is very old, and very well established. This Women's descent stuff only started back in 1934.
Or the laws of Canada?
The principles of our form of Government lies more in Switzerland than it does in England. English principles and legal thought speak only of Monarchy.
My point is that there isn’t a third type, and he certainly isn’t the second type, so he must be the first type.
What makes you think he isn't the second type? Let me show you a piece of the US Constitution.
The Congress shall have Power To...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization....Article I, Section 8, Clause 4
"Naturalization" is the process of making something "like natural." It is not the same thing as being "natural."
Ted Cruz owes his citizenship to the fact that Congress passed a law in 1934 which "naturalized" at birth, all who were born to at least one American Parent. (provided the parent met the criteria in the law, and provided the naturalized child also adhered to the requirements of the law. Aldo Mario Bellei in "Rogers v Bellei, did not, and thus lost his conditional citizenship. )
"Natural citizens" do not need Congress to pass a law for them. They are "natural" citizens.
I’m not “fully convinced”, and this isn’t about “belief” it’s about reason. I’m open to a reasonable refutation of my point, as well as new facts or analysis.
Fair enough. If the meaning of "natural born citizen" was understood in 1787 by all the founders, then it certainly couldn't have been based on a 1934 law.
The Anchor baby provisions don't exist. They were simply made up by subsequent courts and bureaucrats due to a misinterpretation of both the 14th amendment and the Wong Kim Ark decision.
George Will has an excellent article on this.
Eisenhower didn't buy any of this "Anchor Baby" crap. He deported illegal immigrants, including their American born children wholesale.
Overall, there were 1,078,168 apprehensions made in the first year of Operation Wetback, with 170,000 being captured from May to July 1954
I haven’t been proven wrong. You just cited Ann Coulter and George Will. Isn’t it strange that the Freepers who practice law thoroughly debunk you every day? You’re only counter is we hate the Constitution.
How many Presidents have to be born without two American citizens parents before you give it up? Please research the doctrine of political questions...
If I take a vacation and my child is born in Ireland, is he no longer eligible for President?
Thanks for the link, an interesting history. Yes, the Founders certainly put a great deal of thought and wide-ranging research into the Constitution they created.
Please take an introduction to Con Law course... Every now and then smaller schools will offer them for little or no money to the public. You would benefit, and then maybe be able to have a more fruitful discussion with those who study and practice law.
Can you define political question doctrine for me?
We’re saddled with bad court decisions. It really gets old. Because the 14th Amendment can be misinterpreted so easily...
The 14th amendment has resulted in much abuse. It is badly written, and would have better served the country had it been broken into several different amendments.
“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) “
Cruise Missle BUMP!
No, it does not equate native and natural born citizens as the same. It states that both type of citizens are distinguished from Aliens or Foreigners.
Agreed Totally. He is the best, but he is NOT a Natural Born Citizen....
Good points. I suspect that a court would rule that “naturalization” is a process that occurs for a non-citizen to become a citizen, and that one who is a citizen by birth is more like natural-born than like naturalized.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.