Ted Cruz's fmr. professor says Cruz is a hypocrite on the Constitution VIDEO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AiBjZQrEaE ^ | 15 Jan 2016 | Jeff Poor

[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."

[clamper1797]

WENDLE ... born on date July4th 2015 ... nuff said ?

[HarleyLady27]

‘War on Women’ page 100:

“Courageous Roberts (a sex slave of Jeffrey Epstein) said in her lawsuit that Epstein also made her have sex multiple times with both Prince Andrew and Epstein's close friend Alan Dershowitz. It should be noted that Dershowitz vehemently denies all the accusations against him. The Palm Beach lawyer and former federal judge who filed the lawsuit on behalf of Roberts later filed a defamation suit against Dershowitz, after he said they were lying and acting unethically by making the claims that Roberts made.

In fact, Dershowitz’s high-profile client list reads like laundry list of murderers, rapists, and pedophiles: all rich, all guilty. Dershowitz was on the legal team of director Roman Polanski after the auteur raped a thirteen-year-old girl.”

[BlueStateRightist]

I heard the interview with Tribe. His dislike of Cruz sounds personal, and therefore I discount his opinion as biased.

[nopardons]

Ted's father was NOT a naturalized American Citizen until 2005, which automatically denies Ted the NBC ! He's a citizen, but NOT eligible to run for the presidency and neither is Rubio, nor was Jindal and Haley can't be chosen for VEEP, because SHE isn't an NBC either.

And wee barry isn't one either and is pResident illegally!

[AFret.]

Since when do we consider Laurence Tribe a credible source to trust?

---

I had not heard of Tribe until a few days ago. But I am relatively sure that as a Harvard Constitutional professor, he has read the Constitution at least once, unlike Mr Cruz.

[Jane Long]

Didn’t conservative Constitutional professor Natelson say, basically, the same thing?

[nopardons]

Yes, I know; still and all, ALL of the Cruz supporters LOVE him, because of how highly he has praised Cruz. LOL

[HiTech RedNeck]

The Gordian knot cutter looks a lot like grace, mainly because it IS grace...

In layman’s terms, we need to loosen up on the Constitution and start thinking what a God’s eye view would want to do with it, and where our modes of following it have gotten us.

IF POSSIBLE, within the framework of what is at least plausible. Promises should not be easily abandoned; only when we run into some biblical barrier (e.g. do not be unequally yoked) is it a proper thing to do so, though it still can be forgiven. If we can’t agree, give the positive benefit of the doubt where possible under our control. In this case: we advise Cruz of the issues and then wish Cruz well, but if Democrats manage to finagle his disqualification, we have to play with that. SOMETIMES “defeat” for a believer is not so much the believer’s fault as a divine redirection to an area of greater blessing.

But one thing. This gay marriage has got to go; it has made a major hash of things. We can’t clutch the Constitution so tight that it can’t. I’m thinking Bork amendment, frankly. Which would put We The People back at the top of the pecking order at least with only one level of indirection, the Congress in both houses.

[CottonBall]

The only point is that there is doubt, and Hillary will use it.

You can stomp your feet and point fingers and say ‘liberal’ 18 times. It doesn’t change that the seed of doubt has been planted and is sprouting.

[avenir]

I have said that Cruz will be successfully demonized by the Left as doctrinaire, self-righteous and “strident” (per Trump). Oh...and NOT natural born (per Tribe).

Still, I cannot see Ted in a bad light compared to the Obamaci (which is filled with Bastard People).

[Bryan24]

Well, Natural Born Citizen is NOT a clear, unambiguous term. Personally, my OWN definition of ‘natural born citizen’ is one thing, but it doesn’t match what courts have ruled.

[Clint N. Suhks]

The fact that Trump would use Tribe’s advice makes his credibility in choosing who he will delegate to questionable.

[HarleyLady27]

...and after finishing the book “War on Women” Cruz won’t be able to stand up to Hillary, there are things in that book I didn’t even know, and I lived it from Arkansas, White House, Senator, Sec of St....believe me when I say:

Trump is the only one that can stand up to her, she will have Cruz as a mid day snack....

[avenir]

“SOMETIMES ‘defeat’ for a believer is not so much the believer’s fault as a divine redirection to an area of greater blessing.”

I love that. Isn’t it awesome how His paths are beyond tracing out?

I like Trump for THIS time we’re in, but want to keep my side-eye out for trusting in the flesh to conquer evil.

[HiTech RedNeck]

I’d be a bit less RUDE about it, but it looks like a miscalculation upon which a pinch is impending, and that at the command of the politicians who hate him the worst.

He has an ego issue; so does Trump.

However there is another biblical adage to be considered: from whom much has been entrusted, much is expected.

Cruz is a Christian and that used to mean humble and thankful to God and willing to share blessing. In the modern version of it, it painfully often is taken to mean strut up and down about your privileges in God to get your benefit denominated in the capital of the bank of the world. That would be, er, Cruz-ing for a bruising. Cruz could still back out of this position, but he would need to realize he is in it.

Trump the outward unbeliever isn’t expected to project that good an image. The gospel reputation does not ride on Trump (at this point; it would if Trump came to visible faith).

God will treat the two differently because He has a certain agenda He is pursuing with respect to the gospel.

[AFret.]

Still, I cannot see Ted in a bad light compared to the Obamaci (which is filled with Bastard People).

---

You are correct, sir. Jughead and his ilk occupy a special category of evil. I don’t know we did to deserve obama...

[HiTech RedNeck]

Yup, He has a war room where nobody but Himself and possibly the peeks of a few angels are allowed. Even the Son doesn’t go in the Father’s all the time.

[CottonBall]

Yup, she’ll play the female card and anyone but Trump would let her keep it. Trump will tear it up and throw it in her face!

It will be great, I can’t wait ;)

[HarleyLady27]

She will swipe ‘the bern’ right off the stage with about 4 words...

When her and Trump get going, he knows where her ‘buttons’ are and he will push until she does her ‘famous’ explosions, and it will be ‘beep, beep, beep’ because the language she uses is worse than any biker or trucker uses, and I should know, I’m a biker and have been a trucker....

[nathanbedford]

Lawrence Tribe's cynicism is remarkable. He accuses Cruz of hypocrisy when he goes before the cameras consciously attempting to inveigle some Secretary of State to solve the standing problem and thus get the court to rule on the issue of Ted Cruz's electability. Have no doubt, this is a plea by leftist Lawrence Tribe to generate a lawsuit so that he can substitute rule by five leftist Supreme Court Justices for the will of the people.

Tribe knows that with four leftist Justices in the bank who are guaranteed to vote in favor of the Democrat party, he need only pick off one of the remaining five to carry the day. But his problem is he cannot get into the court because of the problem of standing so he is attempting to solve the problem by getting some Secretary of State of one or more states, Democrats to the core, who will simply deny Cruz a place on the ballot and force a lawsuit, probably by Cruz himself.

Even if he succeeds in this scheme, Tribe faces another problem, which is justisibility or appropriateness for the court to accept jurisdiction because this is a political question best left to the people.

As to Tribe's assertion that the original intent of the framers of the Constitution concerning the issue of citizenship by descent was limited to children of fathers only, he misunderstands the issue. The point was that natural born citizenship could be obtained in foreign birth of American parents according to rules set down by Congress. Congress has always assumed that it had the power to grant citizenship by birth of foreign-born babies without requiring a process of naturalization. This is the original understanding not limited to the question whether the child is of an American father.

Acting under this understanding, Congress has extended the time required for residency in the United States and it has extended the birthright to babies of American mothers, all without the need for naturalization. Hence, the original understanding was that foreign-born babies of American parents who comply with requirements laid down by Congress are automatically citizens by birth. Since no naturalization process is required, they are natural born citizens. That is the understanding expressed by the first Congress in the act of 1790 and has never been explicitly repealed by statute or by court case.

Tribe is wrong Cruz is right, original intent was clearly as expressed above. It is Tribe who wants a malleable Constitution, not Cruz. It is tribe who is the hypocrite, not Cruz. It is remarkable that Tribe accuses Cruz of selective original intent when it is tribe who doesn't give a damn what the Constitution means, although he professes otherwise, and seeks to deploy the document only as an obstacle to conservative governance.

The real issue before us is whether Tribe can succeed in creating standing, or worse, whether Tribe can succeed in creating enough doubt about whether he can solve the standing issue to deprive Cruz of the nomination. This is, frankly, a problem that Cruz will have to deal with if it appears that this very limited argument concerning standing gains traction. My belief is that the bulk of conservatives on this thread who are reasonably well-informed will not seize on this issue and, certainly, the great mass of Republican primary voters will not consider it. They will react to bumper sticker exhortations.