The Instigator
claypigeon
Pro (for)
Tied
24 Points
The Contender
Farooq
Con (against)
Tied
24 Points

Senator Mccain does not qualify to be President.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/28/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,877 times Debate No: 2982
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (15)

 

claypigeon

Pro

As much of an open Obama supporter that I am, I also vehemently support Senator Mccain. In an election between any other democrat in the field and Mccain, I would probably vote for Mccain. I say this not to pander but to show my bias. As much as I like Senator Mccain, I do not believe he qualifies to be president, legally.

My argument has only one main part and I would be happy if someone can convince me that I am wrong as I truly do like Mccain and I would like justification to vote for him. Before we debate I will not try to spin this debate by defining certain terms to my advantage like SOME members here do. I prefer a "layperson's" debate where we debate substance and we don't just debate on who can throw out the most jargon and get the most "intellectual" or "philosophical".

Senator Mccain parent's were both veterans deployed to a military base when mommy was pregnant. This base was in the panama canal free zone. Senator Mccain was born in this zone, on a military base, in panama.

The constitution says (Article 1 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."

Senator Mccain fits the latter criteria. He does not fit, imo, the natural born citizen argument as he was born in panama.

Please discuss
Farooq

Con

I see you are one of the deluded moderates that for some reason believe that far-left Kennedeyesque state senator from Illinois is somehow better than the experience, glory, and moderate philosophy of John McCain, and are trying to find excuses to why he is unfit for the presidency.

So you are arguing that he is illegible due to his birthplace. But you have gotten one thing wrong- Senator McCain was born in the United States, on federal territory to be exact, on a military base. Most military bases, regardless of geographical affiliation, are sovereign American territory, such as the one in Panama. Why would one disqualify the son of loyal Americans who are not only citizens, but doing their country's business, on federal territory? You can't get much more American than that.
Debate Round No. 1
claypigeon

Pro

I'd rather we NOT debate topics and DO debate the topic at hand. I'd also rather we get rid of the personal attacks but this is the internet so feel free to make yourself feel good by typing words out on a screen.

Senator Mccain was born in the Coco Solo military base in the Panama free zone in Panama. This zone could be considered to be like Guantanamo in that we were sovereign over it but it wasn't American territory. A better example are the philippines or cuba or puerto rico.These are all territories we were or are sovereign over but they are not considered to be America's Land.

Please correct me here as I LIKE Mccain but I don't think I can vote for him or that he qualifies due to the following. He must be a "natural born citizen" to qualify for president. This debate is based on what natural born citizen means. When the 14th ammendment was made, two classes of citizens were made (according to the supreme court). Citizens of the U.S and citizens of the states. This was upheld in later cases as well. If you are born in the U.S, you are a citizen of the U.S. You are a citizen of the state due to law whether thats immigration or also being born there. One cannot be a citizen of a state w/o being a citizen of the U.S.

According to the State Department "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth".

Here is the source and a PDF 7 FAM 1100 "Acquisition and Retention of U.S. Citizenship and Nationality". U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State. Retrieved on 2008-02-14.

As you did not debate my actual point in your opening speech I will say what I think you should have said as I do want to learn from this debate. I don't go to this site to trash talk others and inflate my ego. I know you have a big penis. You don't need to show me.

Argument you could have made

According to the founders, children born to U.S citizens abroad would be citizens. The actual law (not part of the constitution) passed in 1790 was

"The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States."

Therefore Mccain is a natural born citizen.

My response to Me

Laws are changed and repealed and the constitution trumps law. The 14th ammendment trumps this law. Therefore this law does not apply and my original arguments apply.

Also, in the case supreme court case Montana vs. Kennedy, a child was born overseas to an American mother and the child was not considered a citizen by birth (naturalized citizen).

My point is that Mccain is a citizen. He is not a citizen by birth so he is not a natural born citizen. Therefore he does not qualify to be president. Now I need to do some Bio HW. As another non natural born citizen who is in politics says "I'll be back".
Farooq

Con

Farooq forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
claypigeon

Pro

Farooq, you p.o.s

I post an argument and not only do you not read my opening argument, but you fail to respond. In the interest of fairness I will not post anything new. You've been online many times recently. DON"T TAKE DEBATE IF YOU CAN"T MAKE THE DEADLINE.
People like you are what is bringing this site down. /rant
Farooq

Con

You are very amusing.... yes I read your opening arguemtnt and responded in such a manner as was expected but you have decided to only bash your opponnet with personal attacks. If you wish to look at my record realize I have been very active on this site and rarely miss argument deadlines, and never engage in personal attacks. Now back to the issue at hand-

1) The 14th Amnendment states that one must a citizne born within the boudires of the United States to run for an exectuvie postions

2)McCain was indeeed, as I stated in my orginal arguemnt and you refused to rebut properly, born in United States territory. He was born on a milatary base, which both the Panamanian and United States government concede to be considered territory of the United States. He was not simply born on overseas territory to US parents- but he himself was born on the United States territry, in a federal jurisdiction similar to Washington DC. Therefore previous judicial descisions like the Kennedey case do not really matter and are moot. Seeing as Milatary bases are secured by the United States, taxed by the United States, meant to fufill American interests, and overall deidcated to the United States and run by the United States this is a logical consensus to reach.

3)He was not simply born on overseas territory to US parents- but he himself was born on the United States territry, in a federal jurisdiction similar to Washington DC. Therefore previous judicial descisions like the Kennedey case do not really matter and are moot.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Advidoct 8 years ago
Advidoct
John McCain absolutely meets the requirement.
1. If the government really thought he didnt, they would have stopped him a long time ago
2. Any body born and a US Military base is born on american ground and is awarded full citizenship. Both my little brother and my little sister were born in Landsthul Army Base in Landsthul, Germany. Both were immediatly grantes full citizenship. "Natural born" citizen doesn refer to the place a citizen was born. It refers to the level of citizenship they were granted at birth. John McCain was granted full citizenship at birth therefore being a natural born citizen.
Posted by mindjob 8 years ago
mindjob
"May 25, 1934 to January 12, 1941

If you were born between May 25, 1934 and January 12, 1941, you acquired U.S. citizenship at birth if both your parents were U.S. citizens and at least one lived in the United States before you were born. You didn't have to do anything special to keep your U.S. citizenship.

You could also get U.S. citizenship if only one of your parents was a U.S. citizen, as long as that parent lived in the United States at some time. If your U.S. citizenship came from only one parent, you would have been required to reside in the United States for at least two years between the ages of 14 and 28 in order to retain your citizenship. If the one U.S. citizen parent was your father and you were born outside of marriage, the same rules applied if your father legally legitimated"

I also tried to find information on babies born on military bases, but I haven't been able to yet. It is my belief that, like for embassies, military bases are US soil, therefore making them natural born citizens. Regardless, however, the cite above makes McCain eligible to run for office.
Posted by mindjob 8 years ago
mindjob
For one, naturalized citizens are not natural born citizens. Naturalized are legalized citizens, but given your grasp of legalese, this was probably an oversight.

Also, laws remain in effect unless judicial review overturns it. While the court did not have the right of judicial review at the time the law you refer to was written, no one went back and challenged it once the court did have judicial review. Therefore, the law stands.

This debate got me thinking, so I did some research:
http://immigration.findlaw.com...(1).html

"In many circumstances, even though a child is born outside the United States, if at least one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child's birth, the child automatically "acquires citizenship" (the legal term for this situation). When this child marries and has children, those children may also acquire U.S. citizenship at birth.
The laws governing whether or not a child born outside of the United States acquires U.S. citizenship from his or her parents have changed several times. The law that was in effect on the date of the child's birth determines whether he or she acquired U.S. citizenship from a parent or grandparent.
If there is anyone in your direct line of ancestry who may be a U.S. citizen, it is worth your time to read what the laws were on the date of your birth and his or hers. Many people are pleasantly surprised to find their quest for a green card ended by the discovery that they are already U.S. citizens."

McCain was born in 1936:
so....
Posted by DJBruce 8 years ago
DJBruce
good debate and I would say Pro won the debate but Con has the correct legal ideas
Posted by claypigeon 8 years ago
claypigeon
Normally I'd apologize for my rudeness but skipping rounds ruins the structure and fairness of the debate. If you commit to a debate, please debate.
Posted by claypigeon 8 years ago
claypigeon
The 14th ammendment differentiates citizens by citizens by birth and citizens by law. Both are citizens but only citizens by birth (or so my argument goes) qualify to run for president. Stupid, yes. The law, sadly yeah.
Posted by Shorack 8 years ago
Shorack
Faroog, your first block of text in round 1 really hurted your argument quality.

It makes me even doubt wheter you've read the whole opening round of pro.
Posted by Shorack 8 years ago
Shorack
I'm not that much into the constitutional topics, since i'm no US citizen.

But, wouldn't a child from 2 US citizens qualify as a natural born citizen?
Otherwise the US is really screwing over many people of its military.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
claypigeonFarooqTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:60 
Vote Placed by Rboy159 8 years ago
Rboy159
claypigeonFarooqTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Umasi93 8 years ago
Umasi93
claypigeonFarooqTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by birdpiercefan3334 8 years ago
birdpiercefan3334
claypigeonFarooqTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by sluggerjal 8 years ago
sluggerjal
claypigeonFarooqTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by rsbmd 8 years ago
rsbmd
claypigeonFarooqTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Hypnodoc 8 years ago
Hypnodoc
claypigeonFarooqTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
claypigeonFarooqTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by CongressmanDrew 8 years ago
CongressmanDrew
claypigeonFarooqTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Shorack 8 years ago
Shorack
claypigeonFarooqTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30