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.”

[wardaddy]

Dershowitz loves Dershowitz

I always think of the Sean Penn character in Carlitos Way

[Atlas Sneezed]

If I take a vacation and my child is born in Ireland, is he no longer eligible for President?

---

That’s the best way to frame this in the court of public opinion, and to a court reviewing the matter in the real world.

DL makes an interesting case, but it’s just a clever argument, not a winner.

[wardaddy]

Queeg was born off base no?

[WXRGina]

Queeg? The fictional captain from The Caine Mutiny?

[wardaddy]

You’re not making pals here and attracting folks who can and will likely influence your dot in time

Not sure I agree or not

But judging from your posting history....you’re not stupid

[HawkHogan]

Jeff has already made a thoroughly supported case against the birthers. He’s done a ton of research, cited case law, law journals, et all. It doesn’t matter.

[Lou Budvis]

Assuming 0bama was born in HI, you are dead wrong. The SCOTUS has been clear on this - there are only types of citizens, natural born and naturalized. Not one single official gov’t document differentiates between natural born and NBC.

[TwoSue]

b

[Texas Fossil]

Not one single official gov’t document differentiates between natural born and NBC.

You must have meant "native born" and "natural born citizen". But there are precedents showing that the two terms are not the same. There is a difference between "citizen by birth" and "natural born citizen". FACT

[wardaddy]

McCain

[ObligedFriend]

“infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth,

Shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed:

Thomas Jefferson May 1779

[ObligedFriend]

http://www.screedofmomus.info/2012/06/stop-william-l-bryan.html

[DiogenesLamp]

Jeff has already made a thoroughly supported case against the birthers. He’s done a ton of research, cited case law, law journals, et all. It doesn’t matter.

Jeff gets his @$$ handed to him every time I encounter him. I just finished pointing out to him that his beloved "Wong Kim Ark" decision was made by the same court which gave us the Infamous "Plessy v Ferguson" decision. (Separate but Equal)

I have now asked him if his Infallible Wong court is also infallible on Plessy, and of course i've gotten the usual caterwauling and back tracking.

Jeff just puts up a wall of nonsense which is so large that nobody bothers to read it, they just figure that if he posted all that crap, it must be true or something. Get him down into the details and it comes apart like a cheap suit.

So, if Jeff is supposedly correct, where did this come from then?

Black and White, Published in 1817 and based on the Work of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court at the behest of the Pennsylvania State Legislature.

Oh, but you study con law or something. Well you got the "con" part right anyway.

[ObligedFriend]

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.35112102633445;view=1up;seq=13

[HawkHogan]

Diogenes you’ve never refuted Jeff and posting some obscure page from Pennsylvania that has never been referenced by the SC doesn’t change anything.

Please define political question doctrine for me.

[DiogenesLamp]

Good find. I am familiar with Horace Binney, but never really researched his writings in detail.

A Quick perusal shows Binney lighting in to Chancellor Kent and all but calling him a liar.

[DiogenesLamp]

Diogenes you’ve never refuted Jeff and posting some obscure page from Pennsylvania that has never been referenced by the SC doesn’t change anything.

Yeah, about that supreme court. You know, the one that did the Wong Kim Ark ruling? Well they are the same supreme court which decided Plessy v Fergusson by an even bigger margin than they decided Wong.

Yeah, i'm thinking their credibility is blown to h3ll, and so it really doesn't matter what is their opinion as regards to Wong. They are almost as bad as the Tanney court in that respect.

As for the courts thinking they are the final arbiters? I disagree. That role is played by "We the People."

[noinfringers2]

I have been reading and musing on all these posts as to this issue of Cruz’s citizenship and I admit to not seeing Cruz as a legitimate ‘natural born citizen’ I might have missed somethings in the past but I do not know that he has disclaimed his birth in Canada or his father’s Cuban citizenship at the time of his birth. I haven’t found anything to make me believe he is other than a staunch holder/believer of the Founders intentions for the USA. However, there are others and I include myself, who served in the Pacific in WWII, who feel just as strong about the US. My one big hope and expectation are that out of millions of dedicated true patriots there will be enough few good patriots to take up the flag for the US and not just use it for backdrop at political rallies. Some posters want to challenge others as to being newbies for validity of expression. I want to establish my longtime dedication to the Constitution and to FR.

[HawkHogan]

Political question doctrine dictates that the SC will never touch the eligibility of the President. It’s too late for the SC to rule in your favor. Chester A. Arthur and Obama have both failed the meet the two parent test. The SC will never address this issue.

[ObligedFriend]

Fogbow propagandist...nothing more.