The Instigator
dougefresh
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
burningpuppies101
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

Should the supreme court take Obama's elegibility trial into full court?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 5 votes the winner is...
burningpuppies101
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,127 times Debate No: 6439
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (5)

 

dougefresh

Pro

The main attack on Obama's eligibility consists of the argument that he is ineligible to become president because he does not meet the "natural born citizen" clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, "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."

He falls under this catagory Due to the many claims that his birthplace was not Hawaii, as he claims, but Kenya. This may seem untrue, but there are many facts leading to this.

His paternal grandmother, half-sister, and half-brother have all stated that he was born in Kenya.

He and his sister both agree that he was born in Hawaii, but both give different claims as to which hospital he was born in.

His citizenship in Indonesia in a time of war makes him lose all claims to his Natural Born status and makes him a naturalized citizen.

There is a case agianst him by lifelong Democrat Phillip J Berg. but the Supreme court has decided to ignore the case multiple times. There is another consideration by the Supeme Court to be schedualed on 1/9/09, so my question is this, should they take this case into ful trial

for more information watch the video
burningpuppies101

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate, and I hope that it is both enjoyable and educational.

To the matter at hand. The resolution asks us about something the Supreme Court should do. My job here is to negate the topic. I have to provide reasons for why this should not happen.

1. The requirements to become President have become outdated. In today's world, as the world gets smaller, old traditions must be changed to encompass the new world. Therefore, I propose the following plan that will win me this debate: The United States should get rid of the Presidential eligibility requirement of being a natural born citizen of the US. If I win on this, then I win on why the Supreme court should not put Obama on trial, since there is no issue.

Why the US should get rid of the eligibility requirement of natural born:
1. What matters is what the elected person will do for the country. If the elected upholds American ideals, upholds the constitution, I do not believe that anything should be stopping them. What defines someone as American has changed. Back in the 1800s, being born in America meant you were American. But today, people who have lived in America for all their lives but were not born here call themselves American. If a candidate wants to help the country, and is chosen by the people, he should not be stopped.

In case you don't buy that argument:
2. The will of the people overrules the will of the government. The US gov. was founded on the principles of the power of the people. The government is only as powerful as the people allow it to be. If the US people have chosen Obama, the US government, whom is under the jurisdiction of the people, should not be able to stop them. So, Obama has been chose by the people. He won the election. He has the people behind him. If the US government decides to overturn the people's decision, then it is no longer the US governments. Insert John Locke's social contract.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 1
dougefresh

Pro

dougefresh forfeited this round.
burningpuppies101

Con

Extend all arguments. My opponent is not in a bind. He can't refute my points, since he hasn't put forth any arguments in this speech against mine. He can't post those refutations in his last speech, since fundamental rules of a debate require both sides not to argue new arguments in their last speech. He also can't refute my arguments against his speech, namely my counterplan. Therefore, my counter plan fall through this debate and in one argument in my favor. Since the counterplan takes care of his entire speech, his speech must be disregarded in favor of my counterplan. My counterplan alone should win me this debate, but in case you don't buy that, you also have to accept my argument, not the counterplan, that states that the people's voice matters more than the government's voice. So again, you have to allow that argument in my favor, and that gives you ample ammunition to vote PRO
Thank you, and VOTE PRO
Debate Round No. 2
dougefresh

Pro

dougefresh forfeited this round.
burningpuppies101

Con

Extend all my arguments, and I win.

All the voting issues swing my way.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Tin_Man 8 years ago
Tin_Man
I guess his birth certificate doesn't count as official enough proof of where he was born?

http://www.politifact.com...
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Cindela 8 years ago
Cindela
dougefreshburningpuppies101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 King_Jas 8 years ago
King_Jas
dougefreshburningpuppies101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 crazypenguin 8 years ago
crazypenguin
dougefreshburningpuppies101Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
dougefreshburningpuppies101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
dougefreshburningpuppies101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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