The President Needs to be Born in American

The President of the United States needs to be born in America.

Con will make the case that the president does not need to be born in America.

3 Rounds

First Round acceptance only

Go.

The Constitution

As my opponent has requested, we will discuss this on a legal basis. The Constitution clearly states that you must be born in the United States in order to be the president.

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. [1]

So legally, the Constitution states that the President must be born in the United States and be a resident for 14 years. This is the law. Now, I don't know how you want to debate this "legally" outside of the Constitution.

Supreme Law of the Land

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land meaning that it trumps all other laws. The Supremacy Clause states that this law, the President being born in the United States, trumps all other laws on the matter. [2]

Constitutional Amendment

There were a few attempts to amend the Constitution to allow naturalized citizens to run for the Presidency but it was shot down. The most recent attempt came in 2003 and was known as the Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment. The amendment gained very little support and died in Congress.

Without the amendment the Constitution still stands as the the Supreme Law of the Land and therefore the President has to be born in the United States.

The Resolution

You stated that we must only debate the legality of this. Since we cannot argue outside of the law I am posting the law here and reminding you that you must argue only the legality of the resolution. Since the law is technically on my side you must then provide legal evidence that the President should not be born in the United States to be eligible. Now, due to this we cannot debate ideals but the law only.

I plant my flag here behind the law. I am curious to see how you will shake me from this position using only legality.

Thank you.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Intro

I'm sorry that pro misunderstood by term. I said--as you can clearly read--that the debate would NOT be based solely on a legal basis. However, that doesn't mean legal arguments can't be used so I accept his case. But he should provide a case for why a legal reason is important enough to dictate the outcome of the resolution.

Legal Argument

Pro made it quite clear what the constitution says and how that takes precedent in our law. He showed that there have been attempts to over-turn it but they have failed. However, I see, that in this, he has dismissed his own case by revealing that it is indeed legally possible to overturn that law. This means it is not entirely binding. There is no legal, "need" for the president to be natural-born since it is a most basic principle of our government that it can be fundamentally changed. As long as there is a possibility of it changing, it is not a complete requirement.

Reality Argument

This argument involves the possibility of things actually occurring. There is a popular controversy over whether Barack Obama is a natural-born citizen or not. Indeed, we wouldn't be having this debate right now if it weren't for this fact. And of course, there would be no such controversy if there weren't at least some possibility that it could be true. Someone born outside the United States could theoretically achieve appointment to the office of president if they kept the fact hidden or manipulated the power structure they oversee to keep them from befalling the legal consequences of it. Thus there is no "need", in reality, for the president to be born in the US.

Moral Argument

Most importantly, there is no practical function of this law which requires the president to be natural-born. The men who wrote the constitution had many racist inclinations and this is the only reason the law exists. A person's place of birth says nothing inherent about their ability to lead a nation or how they will lead it. Thus, there is no moral "need" for the president to be born in the US.

Conclusion

I have presented solid cases for all reasonable interpretations of what a "need" might dictate. Pro will need to disprove all of them to claim the resolution.

WEED WEED WEED JUST KEEP SMOKIN THAT WEED :D

I fear I have botched this debate.

I was doing my argument from a tablet device and seem to have misread the opening resolution line.

I apologize for this mistake.

I hope that we can let this lie as a tie and redo it since I am now on a computer but I will fully understand if I take a loss here.

I made an honest mistake and feel bad for ruining the debate.

My apologies.