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."

[nopardons]

Cruz lie list:

He lied about being a NBC.

He lied about not knowing that he dual citizenship until he was in his 40s.

He lied when he told the good people of Texas that he and Heidi had "liquidated all of their assets", to finance his Senatorial campaign.

He either lied, or did not know that his 1/2 brother, who died before he was born, was not the son of his mother's first husband.

He lied about why he voted for the TPA.

PLEASE ADD TO THE LIST.

[Zhang Fei]

There are some virtues in the Putin situation; e.g. he’s managed to unite a country.

Gaddafi, Saddam, Khomeini and Arafat were also pretty good in this regard.

[Republican Wildcat]

Really? Thomas voted against Kelo v. Connecticut and Alito probably would have. They hardly seem to fit the mold of the big government, statist type judges he would prefer to have on the bench - they’d undermine his agenda.

[nopardons]

And Trump was "wrong" in what he said, was he?

No, he was not.

He was NOT endorsing what Putin does.

[HiTech RedNeck]

I’d abstract out only what we can positively conclude. Waiting to damn on speculation is always a good idea. The Trump take on Putin seems to be: Bright man; Wonderful uniter of his people, I’d love to deal with him. We have no data for any more overtones of the situation.

And frankly if I were in Trump’s position I’d look for ways to build bridges with the world rather than glower at it, if the former were still possible. It isn’t always possible, as Trump’s most recent cautious regard towards world Moslems has indicated. But being cautious friends with Russia could have benefits.

Well good night you folks, this debate is getting tiring and I don’t want to make a brain-o. But it helps to try to ponder out what is really important.

[nopardons]

That IS what Trump has said and he is NOT for BIG GOVERNMENT at all.

Has he taken advantage of our present laws? Of course he has and why shouldn't he?

Obviously you have absolutely NO idea at all, what Trump's "agenda" actually is. You're an embarrassment to yourself.

[nathanbedford]

Let us consider together your hypothesis that Cruz becomes president.

What kind of president will he be? You described him as a "bulldozer" and I quite agree. But I think we have to understand that he will be a bulldozer without the support of media, which he may or may not be able to manipulate, and he will be without the support of the establishment Republican Party and without the support, certainly, of the rats. He will also be without the support of the bureaucracy which is, as John F. Kennedy learned to his sorrow, a very entrenched and powerful body.

So we don't know how effective Trump will be. He may be more or less effective than Ronald Reagan, for example. He might be as effective as Lyndon Johnson which raises the question in what direction will he "bulldoze?" We certainly don't want him being effective in the direction either of Lyndon Johnson or Barack Obama.

Cruz is accused Trump of being a "New Yorker" and I think this fits an entirely. He is an opportunist who may or may not follow up on a few issues that have personal meaning to him because of his limited exposure as a businessman. He might follow through on building the wall (likely), he might try (but no doubt will fail) in physically deporting 11 to 30,000,000 illegal aliens in our midst, he will have real problems generating a consensus on reforming the tax code (because he himself has no clear vision of it as evidenced by his own flip-flopping), he will probably attempt to rebuild the military (and get Republican support to do it ), he says he will repeal and replace Obama care (the repeal part seems easy but that is contingent on the replacement part and that is a conundrum that has not been solved for 100 years so he will likely come up with some sort of mishmash in concert with Congress) he will attempt something dramatic in reform of trade (we must understand this means that one set of interests, such as consumers or software manufacturers, will be either advantaged or harmed and another set, like automobile makers or farmers, will be disadvantaged or helped. This is not an easy matter. Best case: Trump slows down the hollowing out of America; worst-case, Trump precipitates a trade war and a worldwide depression), concerning Iran, Trump might be able to do something if he gets into office before Iran explodes its first bomb (even then his options will be limited because he does not want to engage in foreign wars and world opinion will be solidly against him. If he gets in office after Iran explodes a bomb, he will have to confine himself to containing Iran and that will look very much like the policies of George Bush if not Barack Obama), with respect to China, Trump will attempt to discipline China respecting currency manipulation and will probably gain some sort of sham victory if he does not precipitate a trade war.

The problem for Trump is no different than the problem for any of our 21st-century presidents, the structure of our government has ceased to function. The problem requires systemic reform. No man on horseback short of engaging in tyranny can correct the problem. The culture of Washington is so corrupt, the bureaucracy so entrenched, the special interests so powerful, Congress so pusillanimous, the Supreme Court so politicized that no reform is possible through the electoral process. And that remains so no matter how bombastic Trump gets.

Real reform has to come through article V.

To my knowledge Trump is not supported article V reform and I am very suspicious of the kind of Supreme Court he will appoint. I believe Trump is a narcissist and I believe he is motivated by a few narcissistic impulses but I am not at all convinced that he will advance a coherent conservative plan for the reform of a failing government. Without a coherent reform of taxes, there is no hope of reform for spending, there is no hope of bringing the budget under control and I am extremely skeptical of both his ability to persevere and his clear understanding of the goal lines. If we fail on the budget, the country will fail. I am not at all convinced that the entrenched interests can be "bulldozed."

It is not clear that Trump will attempt to build a conservative political party (or better reform the existing Republican party) as a vehicle for conservative governance, rather I fear he will bulldose as his whim takes him without actually leaving a better place after he is gone on to his next excellent adventure.

[HiTech RedNeck]

In various ways, with various amounts of fallout.

We don’t hear a lot of complaint in Russia about genocide today. Can’t say that about these other chaps. Though even Saddam might be better than the wicked whirlwinds in Iraq today.

[HiTech RedNeck]

I think you’re just getting full of yourself... your first sentence should have started with Trump not Cruz.

The pusillanimity problem (hey I spelled it right!) isn’t even Congress. It’s We The People. Since when did we not settle down and accept our bread and circuses?

A Cowardice problem needs a Courage answer. Enter gospel, stage right. President can’t believe for us. God can arrange belief. The bible spells it out, whosoever will, and God appoints to certain times and places on earth. Obama got people going “Oh, God!” Well, God heard it and I see the answer coming.

Again, Bork amendment. This is the only We The People reset to a rogue USSC which is left on the table. This needs no Article V. It isn’t as theoretically clean as an Article V because it could put anything up for grabs. But it will force We The People out of a Cowardice role.

Anyhow it’s great discussing things with you, you do get me to think of more things. I just don’t think in the same directions.

[nathanbedford]

I think that when Ted Cruz received his citizenship he did so at birth without the necessity of a naturalization proceeding, all as set forth by congressional statute and all as has been the consistent practice of our government since the founding.

The government has recognized foreign-born citizenship by descent since at least 1790 and our colonial governments have recognized this since before that and our English and British antecedents did the same before that.

When Ted Cruz became a citizen at birth he did so pursuant to the original understanding of the phrase "natural born citizen" and he did so in accordance with requirements of the statutes made pursuant to that understanding, all as anticipated in the Constitution by the use of the phrase, "natural born citizen."

[Republican Wildcat]

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.

That is not correct in the least. Natural Born Citizen at the time of the Constitution being written would have meant born within the jurisdiction of the sovereign - the common law meaning at that term at the time. Rubio, Jindal, and Haley were all born on U.S. Soil to parents legally within the United States. There is no question at all they are Natural Born, American Citizens. This matter has also already been fully adjudicated by the Supreme Court as has been discussed on this forum numerous times. They even ruled someone born here while parents were on vacation and had no intent on staying was natural born and eligible to run for President because they were legally within the borders at that time...and certainly Haley, Rubio, and Jindal and their parents have much greater connections to the U.S. and being within its jurisdiction than the circumstances of that case. Now with Cruz, it would be statutory by "right of the blood" as declared in legislation passed by Congress in 1790...unless you are arguing Cruz is actually not a citizen yet at all or had to become one through a naturalization process as an immigrant to the U.S. - that does not appear to be the case.

[nathanbedford]

I agree with your post. Thanks for the correction about substituting Cruz for Trump, it's 7:45 AM here in Bavaria and I have been up since about 2 AM so I plead insomnia. Thanks for the exchange of ideas.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Someone born HERE.

They haven’t yet treated the combination of born in CANADA but the other factors favorable.

Now I’d agree. If we just wanted quiet harmony in law and we were running the court we would say fine, let’s give Cruz’s situation the nod.

However we are in parlous times with the body that is actually going to be charged with this action. Some of the special pleading out of it has to be read to be believed. And majority vote makes it tantamount to law the way our Constitution is now conducted.

Quiet harmony of law wouldn’t have ever given us Federal gay marriage. Or even Roe v. Wade. It might have attempted to evolve us there, but not what happened.

I am into reading what looks like it is going to go down. Not into what we might wish will happen without the cards being in place for it.

[nopardons]

You are completely and utterly wrong.

There have been changes since our Constitution was first written.

And children born to foreign diplomats, working here, are NOT citizens, let alone NBCs of this country.

I'm not typing any more of this...but you could NOT be more wrong if you tried to be.

[dragnet2]

Quite telling how Trump and his supporters without compunction cite a leftist Harvard professor to make a point.

That's disingenuous as there are others besides this professor who brought up the same exact thing.

[Spaulding]

Now, what I need from you is the US Code or law that states the Qualifications for a natural born citizen.

Bryan24, yours sounds like a sincere request for an explanation. Here is but one:

You didn't find natural born citizen defined in U.S. Code 1401, our naturalization laws, because Congress has never had the authority to amend or interpret the Constitution. By Article 1 Section 8, Congress had the daunting task of resolving naturalization rules every state would accept. The framers of the Constitution knew they couldn't do that if they wanted to; the unification of the colonies which was the objective of independence, a United States, was falling apart. States that would or wouldn't make slaves into citizens wasn't the only issue, but took a war to resolve,

We were about to be divided up as Canada was. So our framers punted, defining only "Citizens of the U.S. at the Time of the Adoption" meaning those who chose our side, and "Natural Born Citizens", which had a common-law meaning very different from English Common law, and which has been cited in over a dozen Supreme Court Cases, several even before Chief Justice John Marshall cited and quoted Vattel's "born on our soil to parents who were its citizens" as the definition, which has never been modified by the Court, and which Congress has no authority to modify. If congress could modify the Constitution and Supreme Court we would have no need for those bodies.

Marshall goes on (8 U.S. 253, 1814) to quote more of Vattel's reasoning from his 1758 compendium "Law of Nations" (which remains an amazing document available and affordable at Amazon), based upon the legal and philosophical body known as "Natural Law". I like to think of Law of Nations as the "System Specification for the operating system of our nation. Nature's law is cited in the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. I didn't realize this until Obama came along to wake many of us up.

To keep this short, I'll suggest that you find the Supreme Court case Minor v. Happersett, a concisely written, meaning that is like reading a book of mathematics or physics, you need to read carefully, but the writing is clear. Chief Justice Morrison Waite, in 1875, made this case, which he certainly knew was creating precedent that would be used -cited- , perhaps forever to "nail" the definition, which it is the Supreme Court's obligation, with sole authority to do so, interpretation of the terms. om this case the term natural born citizen, not defined in the Constitution. No term by Treason was defined there.>/p>

Here is the key phrase, for convenience, since you will find it in many, probably thousands of posts here at FR: ,p>

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.

[nopardons]

A citizen, YES, but NOT an NBC! And in an early interview ( long before thinking about running for president ), Ted has stated what I keep having to type.

And frankly, at this point, I hope to GOD that he doesn't become the nominee and I doubt he shall, unless something quite unforeseen happens.

[Cboldt]

It would be great if one of the debate moderates would put the question directly to Cruz. Ask if he knows the case of Rogers v. Bellei, If he says yes, then lay out that Bellei was born in Italy to a US mom and Italian dad, in Italy and was granted citizenship. That court said Bellie was naturalized (quote directly from the case) because his citizenship depends on an Act of Congress. Doesn’t this mean that you (Cruz) are a naturalized citizen too?

[nopardons]

That would be GREAT, but I doubt that that will happen .

[Republican Wildcat]

That IS what Trump has said and he is NOT for BIG GOVERNMENT at all. Has he taken advantage of our present laws? Of course he has and why shouldn't he? Obviously you have absolutely NO idea at all, what Trump's "agenda" actually is. You're an embarrassment to yourself.

Well, I guess if opposition to private property rights (a basic freedom) and supporting the outrageous Kelo v. Connecticut SCOTUS decision, support of corporate bailouts, support of the trillion and growing Obama 'stimulus' (porkulus), support of "universal healthcare" that "the government's gonna pay for it!", attacking and lecturing "you conservatives - get used to it!" who don't think it is the government's role to "take care of everybody", defending Planned Parenthood and all of the "good things they do" and claiming conservatives should admit they do "good things" in the wake of those outrageous videos, supporting Kerry, supporting Obama, getting into a handout war over who can spend the most money during a debate on "women's healthcare", etc. are all in fact "not big government at all" then I have indeed been clueless for believing the opposite and am an embarrassment to myself if I have been so misguided for so long to think support of those things is big government and opposing them is not big government. But I don't think I am. Straight from the man himself