Posted on 01/16/2016 7:59:19 PM PST by UMCRevMom@aol.com
Thursday following FBN's broadcast of the Republican presidential debate, Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe attacked Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) 97%, one of the participants in last night debate, for his stated on reasoning for his eligibility to run for president of the United States.
According to Tribe, Cruz applies a double standard to his interpretation of the Constitution, to which he deemed Cruz to be a "constitutional opportunist" and a "hypocrite."
"I've done a lot of historical research on it, and so have a lot of other people, and the best evidence seems to be that what they meant in 1788 was something more than just citizen from birth," he said. "They actually meant a citizen whose birth was sort of natural, not in a biological sense but in the sense of connection to the land. The idea was, that it was something that Congress couldn't change, unlike the naturalization process, which Congress has monkeyed around with all the time. I mean, for example, in 1934, the first time it said, you can be a citizen who doesn't need to get naturalized as long as your mom was an American citizen. And that's ultimately the basis on which Cruz has to rely.
The funny thing is, that the kind of guy Cruz is, he's always been this way. When he was my student he was this way. He's always said the Constitution always means the same thing that it meant when it was adopted. That's why he made this funny joke to Trump, you know, saying, the Constitution didn't change since last September. Well, he thinks it didn't change since 1788 when it comes to gays and, you know, women and other things. But when it comes to his own ambition, he's suddenly becomes what he accuses me of being, and it's a pretty true accusation, a judicial activist. That's not the guy he is normally."
"He's being a constitutional opportunist, a hypocrite," Tribe continued. "It's sad, because he makes light of it, but it is a genuine open question, and there's no way of getting around it. Like if he's the nominee, it won the be hard to imagine some secretary of state somewhere simply refusing to put him on the ballot on the ground that that secretary of state is also an originalist and thinks, if you weren't born on the land of the United States, then you just can't run. At that point, somebody would have to sue them, whether it's Ted Cruz himself as the nominee, if that's what we've got, or the Republican National Committee. There's no way to avoid an issue like that going to the Supreme Court. And the irony is, the liberals on the court, assuming they all voted according to principle, as opposed to politics. It isn't always that way, the liberals on the court, the activists would go with Cruz, and the originalists if they were true to their position like Scalia, would vote against him."
Ummm it was Alan Dershowitz not Larry Tribe that taught Senator Cruz law at Harvard and Dershowitz described him as the “best student I’ve ever had”.
If you’re gonna lie...at least try to make it look somewhat credible.
If it were allowed to be posted here I wouldn’t doubt it.
This Communist nut? Why is Trump and FR citing this kook?
And Tribe was the judicial adviser to Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign .
The fundamentalist Constitutional argument comes back that this cannot inhere to the Constitution itself, only to lower law.
And getting fewer by the FEC report felonies.
And anyhow any number of names doesn’t change whether he’s likely to actually show up and weigh in to people who don’t give a hoot what “true blue conservatives” called him!
That is the dumbest post of the day. Thanks for the laugh!!
What case law is that, pray tell?
Where is elsewhere?
Which is another stupid situation. A felony used to be something that people were hanged to death for. (Or sometimes whipped in lieu of it.) We have a crazy increase of what gets this sort of penalty today, very crazy.
You did not know that it is a felony to lie to the Federal election Committee about million dollar campaign loans from NEW YORK banks ,did you?
There are references to alleged case law. The kicker here is how fundamentalist are we getting about the Constitution. A high degree is urged by most modern conservatives and the 2nd Amendment is about as good a rationale as any, because otherwise we could Congressionally redefine infringement and regulated and have all sorts of mischief going on.
We need a Gordian knot cutter here or we chase our own tails.
No case law on the books supports him. Cruz is reaching for straws.
You can't have it both ways, you hypocrite!
Trump has already stated, that he loves Thomas and Alito and would pick someone/s like those two.
And just where the hell has Tribe been for the last 8 years on this same subject with regard to o? Sorry, but if there is a hypocritical constitutional opportunist in all this it is most definitely the law professor who only brings this up when it is a conservative.
You can comment on someone’s IQ without getting into politics. I won’t try to explain the difference to you.
Yes —”like” Hillary!!
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.