Tag Archives: Hans Mahncke

Contract Law on YouTube

Dr-Hans

Dr Hans Mahncke

Although the natural born citizen debate is one that is sure to resurface one day, now that Ted Cruz is no longer running for president, we can turn out attention to more mundane matters of law. Over the past few months, I have made some videos to guide law students through their Contract Law studies. These videos can be viewed on YouTube here.

The face of higher education (and education in general) is changing fast and that is great news for almost everyone.When I first started studying law, this sort of open access learning was unheard of. The best that could be done for people in far away places was correspondence courses, where students were sent large packs of worksheets and exercises, which would be then have to be snail-mailed back to the lecturer on a weekly basis.

It has been great to receive so much positive feedback on my videos from students across the globe, and I will try and expand the library of videos in the near future, perhaps include some new subjects, as well as enhancing some of the older videos.

Is Ted Cruz a Natural Born Citizen?

When I was growing up, my American friends who were born overseas, to American parents, would lament that they were not eligible to become President of the United States. I can’t remember whether any of them actually wanted to become President but, in any case, It was common knowledge that they couldn’t. The same was said about people like John McEnroe, who was born to American parents, in Germany. Again, this was common knowledge.

Then, many years later, the whole Barrack Obama birther thing flared up – was he born in Hawaii or in Kenya? In the end, Obama released his birth certificate and as it turns out he was indeed born in Hawaii and has, therefore, always been eligible to become President of the United States.

Along comes Ted Cruz (By the way, strange character, always talks as if he is in a debate, even when he is not in a debate. I have known many many of his type as law school moot team coach – but that is a topic for another day.) Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada to an American mother (Whether his mother was registered as American, or whether she was registered as Canadian is the subject of some debate – but let us assume for arguments sake that she was American and registered as such).  What most of the media seem to have forgotten what was common and accepted knowledge just a few years ago – indeed, what was the whole reason that Obama faced all the birther scrutiny.

It was never in dispute that Obama had an American mother, so how could Obama’s situation then be any different from Cruz’s now, even if Obama was born in Kenya? Of course, it would have been no different at all – the only real difference is that Obama was born in the United States and Cruz was not. I guess people can make up their own minds as to why Obama and Cruz seem to be treated differently by the MSM, especially since it is not in dispute that Cruz was born in another country. But whatever the reason, it is not the point here. The real issue is whether everyone who always knew that you had to be born in the United States to become President got it wrong?

The Constitution of the United States is 100% clear that they were not wrong, especially if the Constitution is read literally, which is the sort of reading that Ted Cruz himself advocates on a daily basis. The relevant section is Article II section 1:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Not only does this section tell us that an eligible person must be a “natural born Citizen” but it also tells us that a “natural born Citizen” is something distinct from a mere “Citizen”. We know this because this section gives mere Citizens who happened to be alive on September 17 1787, i.e. the day on which the Constitution was adopted, the right to become President. In other words, people who are Citizens but who were not alive on September 17 1787, are not eligible, unless, of course, they also happen to be natural born Citizens.

So what is the distinction between natural born Citizens and citizens? For this question too, the Constitution gives us an answer, in Article 1 section 8:

“The Congress shall have Power To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”

Thus, it was left to Congress to determine who was a Citizen (but not who was a natural born Citizen), which it did three years later in the Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

“the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States”

It could not be any clearer, Children born outside of the United States to Citizens of the United States are considered as Citizens, not natural born Citizens.

What was common knowledge a few year ago when Obama ran for President remains a veritable fact today. Ted Cruz is a Citizen who was not alive on September 17 1787. Ted Cruz is not eligible to become President of the United States.

Arthur Li

Hans Mahncke

Arthur Li as University of Hong Kong Council Chairman

As I predicted some months ago, CY Leung has appointed his partner in tyranny, Arthur Li, as University of Hong Kong Council Chairman.

Here’s how I put it back then:

“Of course, CY Leung will appoint his elitist, arrogant and tyrannical buddy Arthur Li as Chair of the HKU Council. But why the delay? Does the sociopath think he can somehow choose an opportune time for the announcement so that no one will notice?”

And what day did CY Leung choose to do the dirty deed? 31 December – at 00:30 no less.

Told you so.

The College of Law at 6

Last week was the 6th anniversary of the founding of the College of Law in Hong Kong. Here’s a news story about the College:

PZ Media Inc‘s insight:

After studying, practicing, and teaching law for close to two decades, Hans Mahncke has made a significant leap in the field he loves. Hans Mahncke has founded the College of Law in Hong Kong. Given that he has such a diverse experience in the field ‒ doing everything from working as a lawyer to teaching law at various institutions – Hans Mahncke hopes that his varied and rigorous experience can be shared with aspiring lawyers in the new College of Law. Hans Mahncke has taught law to students at all levels, ranging from undergraduate freshmen to experienced, practicing lawyers.

“It just seemed to be an obvious next step,” said Hans Mahncke. “I’ve spent many years teaching, designing syllabi, and running law programs. But I saw a demand for a new College of Law, and it occurred to me that I might address that need and at the same time expand my career in a new and challenging way.”

Hans Mahncke explains that the College of Law is still only in its early stages, but the college has already shown enormous promise. So far, Hans Mahncke has been able to attract world-renowned scholars with the aim of bringing high quality law education to students and practitioners in Hong Kong. Hans Mahncke notes that interest in the College of Law is already at an impressive level.

“There seems to be a real demand for law programs outside of the three government-funded institutions,” said Hans Mahncke. Additionally, Hans Mahncke seeks to provide comprehensive educational consulting services for institutions and students alike, with the aim of enhancing Hong Kong’s ability to compete in the increasingly competitive and globalized education market. With his background in both law and university administration, Hans Mahncke is uniquely placed to offer these services. His experience and teaching abilities will attract both law students and educational institutions.

“It’s very exciting to begin a new educational venture,” said Hans Mahncke. “I’m incredibly excited to see the College of Law grow and develop as we help students and institutions embrace the opportunities of the Chinese market, but also face the challenges of a globalized world.”

Still no word from CY

It has been about a month since Leong Che-hung left the position of Council Chair of HKU and as yet there is no replacement. As I said in a previous post, it is CY Leung’s duty to appoint a Council Chair (never mind for the moment the preposterousness of this lying psychopath having this prerogative in the first place).

This is the relevant provision from the HKU Ordinance (Cap 1053):

“1. The Council shall consist of-
(a) 7 persons, not being students or employees of the University, appointed by the Chancellor, one of whom shall be appointed the Chairman by the Chancellor;”

Thus, this is a very simple matter of a the Chancellor (who is CY Leung) having the statutory duty to appoint, from among seven sitting councillors, a chairman.

Why the wait? Some of the earlier speculation was that CY Leung wanted to wait until after the District Council elections, so as to not upset voters who may otherwise vote for pro-democracy parties. I never thought that that was a very plausible explanation. CY is pretty much universally hated and this appointment will not change that either way.

In any case, things did not turn out to well for him in the elections. I think a more plausible explanation is that he is still plotting with Arthur Li as to how best to appoint Li and how to further erode academic freedom once Li is in power. Perhaps some horse trading still going on, or perhaps Li still needs to shoe shine CY’s mainland masters. Who knows but what is sure is that CY could not care less about what the public thinks of his appointments.