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 ...
Isn't it fascinating that whomever wants to help those who might still harbor respect for the Constitution float one naturalized citizen after another - Jindal, Rubio, Cruz? Of course Jim Carville only wants to help Republicans chose a suitable opponent for Hillary, just as they chose the non natural born citizen McCain, whose lack of eligibility they exposed so thoroughly beginning before his 2000 attempt at the presidency. They protected McCain so no Republican would dare vet Obama, who even told us honestly and correctly that he is not a natural born citizen. Cruz, like Obama, is saying that he will leave his eligibility up to the public. Cruz is saying that The Constitution is irrelevant. Let the people, the media, the SEIU counting our votes, make the decision. Then we assume he is being honest should he have the chance to swear he will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution? Hillary is a natural born citizen, and undoubtedly use Cruz' ineligibility should it be a close election.
For those new to the Constitution, and/or the Supreme Court, one of twenty or so clarifications, since the Constitution explicitly does not include definitions is the precedent setting case Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162 (1875):
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
(Chief Justice Waite used the seemingly awkward construction, citing "citizens" because that was necessary to his case. The Constitution only defined natural born citizens, and Waite had already asserted that Virginia Minor was a citizen because she was a natural born citizen. An Uniform Rule for who were citizens came in the 14th Amendment, and Waite needed her status before the 14th Amendment to prove his case. He resolves the ancient term, dating to Greek and Roman law, "Natives" as equivalent to "natural born citizen", and affirms the common-law definition.) There are many who believe they are wiser than our framers, who required an amendment or constitutional convention to change a provision of the Constitution. The last half hearted try - there were 8 amendments attempted between 2002 and 2007 - was by Obama and his campaign chair Clare McCaskill, Senate Bill 2678, Feb. 2008, , the ‘‘Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act’’. It was intended to imply that John McCain was a natural born citizen, and failed to pass out of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Either we honor and protect the Constitution, or realize that every provision is up for grabs. The 1st and 2nd Amendments are being attacked with intent, and viciously, with all the resources oil, and crony capitalism, and unionized government can cough up. We will get what we respect enough to deserve, and may have to fight for it again once our freedoms are gone.
That’s not American law. That’s why even if Obama were born abroad, he’d still be at least an American citizen except that his mother was still too young to convey American citizenship as his sole American parent in those circumstances. Cruz’s mother was old enough, with enough years in the US after, I forget, age 15 or whatever the deal at the time, for him to be an American citizen by birth.
Why can the American mother pass citizenship but the Cuban father cannot?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29342223/Morse-Natural-Born-Citizen-1904
Our conclusion is that the child of citizens of the United States, wherever born, is “a natural-born citizen of the United States,” within the constitutional requirement; and, as such, if possessed of the other qualifications, would be eligible for the office of president of the United States.
I cringe at the mention of an ‘American Citizen’ these days. Years ago I had no hesitation in speaking of myself as an ‘American’ even when serving in WWII. However, now when I hear people saying we are all ‘Americans’ I get the feeling they could be trying to tag me in with Mexican Americans, and Cuban Americans, etc, etc, so that the USA belongs with/to a whole bunch of ‘Americans’. The US Constitution was written for the United States of America.It is a shame that such a beautiful and poignant song as ‘America the Beautiful’ gets caught up in this situation.
Cruz was the child of one US citizen and one foreigner.
Is the foreigner father permitted to pass his citizenship to his son? You are saying no. What about the country of his birth.
I don’t know what Cuban law was at the time, but for our purposes American law pertained.
Where did you get your law degree?
That rude quip adds nothing but your baseless insult. Unless one has a "law degree," then one is not qualified to study history and the Constitution AND understand them? That's pure, presumptuous ignorance.
Let’s list the types of citizens:
1. Natural-born.
2. Naturalized.
3. ???
Please help complete the list, and let me know where the third one is found in the Constitution.
What’s your point?
I’ve pretty much said all I can say, since all of us here are fully convinced, each of his own beliefs.
I like him a h3ll of a lot. "He Fights!" (As Lincoln said of Grant.)
I like him so much I might even shut up about the fact that he isn't eligible. Nowadays, what do the laws mean anyway?
Let’s list the types of citizens:
1. Natural-born.
2. Naturalized.
3. ???
What’s your point?
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.
He is ALSO a Canadian Citizen, and he might be a Cuban citizen as well. I think Cuba follows Jus Sanguinus, the same as most of the world.
He could go live in Canada right now. Wouldn't need to be naturalized.
I think so too. I've followed his commentary better than most. Some of it I don't quite get, but other parts are quite sensible.
How about a previous Supreme Court decision stripping someone of citizenship who has the same circumstances of birth as does Ted Cruz?
If Congress giveth by law, then Congress can taketh away by law.
As "natural" citizens were NOT CREATED BY CONGRESS, their citizenship is beyond the power of congress to take.
If Congress giveth by law, then Congress can taketh away by law.
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.