The Instigator
jnghiem93
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
LightC
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Amend Article 2 Section 1 of the Consitution

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
LightC
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/1/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,049 times Debate No: 6380
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

jnghiem93

Pro

"All men are created equal; they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This is implemented at the beginning of the Declaration of Independence. Denying the right for all legal citizens to be eligible for Presidency is contradicting what our founding fathers set forth for us over 200 years ago. Because all legal citizens should be entitled to a full set of equal rights and since all citizens are equally American, I stand in resolute affirmation of this idea. It states in Article 2 Section 1 of the constitution that no person except a natural born Citizen or a Citizen of the United States may be eligible for Presidential office. By stating this in the constitution, are we condemning others for where they were born by denying this right? Should we be punishing others for wherever they were born, which they had absolutely no control over? This is utterly ridiculous. It is absolutely absurd and contradictory for the so called, "Melting Pot" to deny this right to immigrants. All legal citizens whether they be natural born or not, should be entitled to an equal set of rights as stated in my first contention. Being a natural born citizen of the United States does not make you more qualified than someone who was not. We should judge someone who is qualified for Presidency, not by where they were born, but by their passion, knowledge and character. Holding such absurd principles that we have now defies the fundamental principles of our nation. If one doesn't have to be a natural born citizen to hold a position in the House or Senate, then why is one denied the right for Presidency? After all, isn't the sole purpose of the checks and balance system to maintain equal power among all three? If this is so, shouldn't the same qualifications apply for the same amount of power? Not allowing the same standards for all three goes against the sole purpose of this system. In addition, being born in America does not make you more "American" than others. Where you were born is by chance, not by choice. But we have the choice to amend the constitution and follow what rights our founding fathers granted to us. In summation, because being a natural born citizen does not make you more qualified than someone who others and all citizens are equally American, I urge you to amend Article 2 Section1 of the United States Constitution.
LightC

Con

I'll go AC, then NC

AC Premises:

1. All men are created equal
2. All legal citizens deserve the same rights
3. All legal citizens (natural born or not) deserve the right to be eligible for president

I concede premise 1.

2. All citizens deserve the same rights

--> I have 2 responses:

First, all citizens DESERVE the same rights, but those rights can be limited based on actions and/or circumstances. For instance a criminal loses the right to bear arms because of their criminal act. Thus, the idea that positive rights cannot be taken away is totally fallacious.

Second, I would argue that some rights are privileges, or something that must be earned. Not all rights are given to you at birth. E.g. life

3. All legal citizens (natural born or not) deserve the right to be eligible for president

--> This will take use directly to the NC:

I negate: Amend Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution

Contention I: Social Contract Theory

Ronald Reagan once said that "A nation without borders is no nation at all." This quote can be sufficient negation of the resolution and links in to the social contract theory. Also, it can be taken literally and philosophically. We will look at it from a philosophic angle. In the case of a natural born citizen vs. any other person, the natural born citizen would most likely have no other loyalties to a foreign sovereign state. The natural born citizen has been a US citizen for his/her whole life, whereas a citizen that came from another country has had past loyalties, not to the US. Now, link this in to the SC Theory. Basically the natural born citizen is the most appropriate pick to fill the top office in dealing with the contractual duties of the US (People --> Government --> People). The natural born citizen has no other sovereign loyalties and thus has a clear contractual duty with only the US. Furthermore, link this idea into the Reagan quote. The only way to have a legitimate (philosophically) nation is if it has borders and a contract between people and state. If not, it is not a nation anymore and lacks sovereignty.

For this reason you can negate.
Debate Round No. 1
jnghiem93

Pro

Attack on my opppnents case:

:First, all citizens DESERVE the same rights, but those rights can be limited based on actions and/or circumstances.
:For instance a criminal loses the right to bear arms because of their criminal act. Thus, the idea that positive rights
:cannot be taken away is totally fallacious.

The rights granted to citizens are limited based on actions and/or circumstances. BUT, birth should not be one of those circumstances. What does birth have anything to do with your ability to run a country? NOTHING.

:Thus, the idea that positive rights cannot be taken away is totally fallacious.

I am not stating this idea. I am merely suggesting that the circumstances in which such rights would be GRANTED need to be changed. You have been mistaken.

:Second, I would argue that some rights are privileges, or something that must be earned. Not all rights are given to
:you at birth. E.g. life

Some rights are priviliges indeed. Thus, the circumstances in which we can aquire such privilges should be equal. We all get a chance at these privilages. "All men are created equal." This quote is contradicted when we do not allow equal means to equal privilages.

:In the case of a natural born citizen vs. any other person, the natural born citizen would most likely have no other
:loyalties to a foreign sovereign state. The natural born citizen has been a US citizen for his/her whole life, whereas a
:citizen that came from another country has had past loyalties, not to the US.

Can we not have such loyalities to other foreign nations and still be highly qualified for Presidency? Relations with other nations have no effect on a persons ability to run a country.

:Basically the natural born citizen is the most appropriate pick to fill the top office in dealing with the contractual duties
:of the US (People --> Government --> People

Can you tell me reasons why this is so?

:The natural born citizen has no other sovereign loyalties and thus has a clear contractual duty with only the US.

Not ONE person has suggested or insinuated that one who has had other soveriegn loyalties can NOT have clear contractual duties to only with the U.S. And who are we to assume that they have even had other sovereign loyalties. They could have moved here when they were young children or babies. We need to judge someones ability for Presidency not on their birth location which they had NO control over.
LightC

Con

"The rights granted to citizens are limited based on actions and/or circumstances. BUT, birth should not be one of those circumstances. What does birth have anything to do with your ability to run a country? NOTHING."

--> Extend my logic I placed in my NC.

"I am not stating this idea. I am merely suggesting that the circumstances in which such rights would be GRANTED need to be changed. You have been mistaken."

--> I was merely making an observation as a reason to not vote on that issue.

"Some rights are priviliges indeed. Thus, the circumstances in which we can aquire such privilges should be equal. We all get a chance at these privilages. "All men are created equal." This quote is contradicted when we do not allow equal means to equal privilages."

--> You totally misunderstand the context of that quote. When Jefferson stated this he was talking about the inalienable rights. Life, liberty and property/pursuit of happiness. This has nothign to do with qualifications to be president.

"Can we not have such loyalities to other foreign nations and still be highly qualified for Presidency? Relations with other nations have no effect on a persons ability to run a country."

--> Yes, it would have major impact. For example; lets say that we get a President who was born and lived a lot of his life in Argentina. And then during his presidency Argentina gets in a war. His loyalty to that nation would be the primary reason why we would fight for them, instead of looking at the circumstance. A president must have no other loyalties then the country he is serving, namely the US.

"Can you tell me reasons why this is so?"

--> My NC case. SC theory and intertwined with other loyalties.

"Not ONE person has suggested or insinuated that one who has had other soveriegn loyalties can NOT have clear contractual duties to only with the U.S. And who are we to assume that they have even had other sovereign loyalties. They could have moved here when they were young children or babies. We need to judge someones ability for Presidency not on their birth location which they had NO control over.

--> If there are other loyalties, other contract so to speak could be formed. Ok, that is true, but then what their families who have loyalties as well. "Power by the throne" is an important issue. Again, another stab at the contractual duties to the country.

[Extensions]

1. Basically extend all logic off the NC (my case) because she never refuted it, she jsut asked me a question about it. Thus she has conceded and can be extended.

For these reasons you can negate.
Debate Round No. 2
jnghiem93

Pro

jnghiem93 forfeited this round.
LightC

Con

Extend my arguments and my rebuttal points.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"Thus, the idea that positive rights cannot be taken away is totally fallacious.
"
Not if you conclude it from the premise that no positive rights exist... granted Pro didn't :).
Posted by LightC 8 years ago
LightC
are not re*
Posted by LightC 8 years ago
LightC
No, too far away...I wish though. I live in NY, and going to Cali would be an inconvenience. So yeah, the national circuit tournaments I participate in re Yale, Harvard, Princeton, and Columbia.
Posted by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
Cirro, youre an LD debater??? Hm.... didn't know that. Were you at VBT?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Jamesothy 8 years ago
Jamesothy
jnghiem93LightCTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by TheRaven 8 years ago
TheRaven
jnghiem93LightCTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07