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 ...
It's certainly possible that those who passed the 1795 Act may have intended, by the change in wording, to exclude children born abroad to US citizens from Presidential eligibility.
Let's grant the point for the sake of argument.
Even so, it doesn't change the fact that the First Congress, which (with President Washington) included 40% of those who had just signed the Constitution) intended for such people to be "natural born citizens," eligible to the Presidency.
That fact alone destroys the claim that it took birth on US soil plus two citizen parents to make a natural born citizen, or to make someone eligible to be President.
And that action has the stamp of approval on it of 40% of the signers of the Constitution, which - aside from the Constitutional Convention itself - was almost certainly the biggest gathering of signers of the Constitution that ever took place.
Okay. So Lysander Spooner (who by the way is probably the weakest authority in the entire list of at least 30 quotes, I debated about even leaving him in, but hey, he's still better than most of the crap you post) left out the extremely small exception of children of diplomats.
How many children do you think were born to foreign diplomats in 1845?
I notice you don't have much else to say.
Look, I'm going to be frank here. Any unbiased person who's followed the conversation for very long has already concluded that the vast weight of evidence is against you, and that you have virtually nothing to say about any of the legitimate evidence from our legitimate early authorities. About all you can do is nitpick about the fact that Lysander Spooner didn't mention the small exception of children of diplomats.
I must admit I'm pretty mystified by you. Do you enjoy appearing an idiot? Why do you keep spinning endless BS? Surely you can't actually believe the crap you post. Surely you can't be that fundamentally dishonest, or that delusional.
I find it very difficult to believe you've actually talked yourself into believing this crap. You've seen the evidence. You know that your claim doesn't have a leg to stand on. Not really. You can hardly make a case without twisting somebody's words, and ignoring all of the straightforward, untwisted evidence.
And every time you argue it, you look like an idiot.
I'm just trying to figure out why you keep posting this BS.
I have no issue with foreign born children of US citizens (plural) being “natural born citizens”.
My issue is with mixed nationality parentage which inherently leaves it open for divided loyalty. I see no precedent that makes a divided nationality parentage (especially if it is the father) having children born abroad that are “natural born citizens”.
For that matter there is serious doubt about the anchor baby citizenship, let alone giving anchor babies “natural born citizenship”.
Remember at the time of our Constitution, most countries assigned citizenship by the nationality of the father and the mother could not vote.
And we dare not mention the issue of foreign born B_tard Children to mixed nationality parentage conception.
You think the Clintons don't have "divided loyalty?" You think John Kerry doesn't have "divided loyalty?"
You think Ted Cruz's loyalty to our country is suspect, or that he should be disqualified, simply because his father came from Cuba?
The Founders didn't intend to set up a nanny state for us. Do you think they should have?
They counted on the voters to have at least some sense. When we lose that, we're hosed. Any way you cut it.
I see several words in English that you lie and claim are in French. Stop posting anti-American lies to FR.
Agreed. BJC sold out to ChiComs. Hillary to Saudi’s. Obozo to Saudi’s & Muslims Globally.
The number of Congressmen & Senators who are bought an paid for is frightening.
Actions have consequences.
We agree on the consequences.
Treason is a very serious charge, event today.
Some of it is clearly prosecutable. More potentially.
At some point some of the States will make a call to stand on the issues. It is coming.
Will a planned global financial collapse come before that happens? We shall see.
I’m glad that we’ve found some common ground here.
Benedict Arnold, Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen were all natural born citizens with two US citizen parents.
So? Does that change the law?
And they had divided loyalty. ie. they were traitors.
No, I hear you fine. At some level of word-meaning purity, you may even be correct. But that's not the reality we live in. In the real presidential-election world of 2013, it is the courts who define words, make the rules, define the playing field if you will - not you or I. And the courts don't care about NBC arguments.
So stop complaining about the playing field and play to win. Penalizing our own team by needlessly excluding Cruz makes no sense at all.
It does not change the law. And here’s the law that applies to Senator Cruz:
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock
A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship.
Citizenship is not the same as “natural born citizenship”.
The issue is potential divided loyalty.
Yeah but Citizen of the United States at Birth is the same as Natural-born Citizen and nobody genetically inherits divided loyalty. That would develop over the course of one’s life. Infants have no awareness of loyalty.
Nope, that is not the law.
No, they are not. Show me where in the law where it is stated that they are. A citizen at birth can be an anchor baby with NO US parents, if he is born in the US. A foreign born's citizen is a totally different and more complicated issue. Citizen is not the same a "natural born citizen". Natural born citizen is not simply a citizen that was not nationalized.
The Democrats will let Cruz run because they do not want a court challenge to Obama’s birthplace. It will never get to the SCOTUS.
Once Obama finishes his term without being tossed from office via Impeachment, and Cruz is put on the ballots of all 50 states, the definition of NBC will have been set by precedent and 3 elections.
The best thing that could happen to the Democrats is for Cruz to run against HRC and HRC win. Then, Obama’s birthplace becomes moot and he is no longer an “usurper”.
The best thing for us is for Cruz to run and win.
The best thing for US is for Obozo to be impeached. It may well happen.
I like Ted Cruz very much. But the Law is the Law. Either change it legally or abide by it. Anything that takes away from compliance with the Constitution is another nail in the coffin for the US. We currently have entire agencies in DC that are totally unconstitutional on their face. This is killing us.
Obama will never be removed from office by the impeachment process. There is no math that gets to 67 votes in the Senate.
Read up on Sandra Day O’Conner’s recent remarks that the SCOTUS should never have taken the Bush v. Gore case. She reflects a common view that courts should not determine elections.
If the SCOTUS declines to take a challenge to Cruz’s candidacy, then they have set the precedent that NBC = Citizen at birth. At that point, anyone who is a citizen at birth and over 35 may run for POTUS. It will be over, unless an amendment is passed to define the qualifications to be POTUS. If Cruz runs, then the amendment idea will never get off the ground, or, it will look like the Immigration Reform bill currently being considered.
By November 8th, 2016, precedent will have established the definition of NBC without the SCOTUS needing to rule.
Sorry, I totally disagree.
There's the bottom line.
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.