Originally posted by sigma:
If that's the best you can come up with you lost the argument a long time ago. You've refuted absolutely nothing posed to you..


What's to refute? This discussion is based entirely in opinion. If we were arguing whether the Constitution can be amended, then I wouldn't argue on the side that it can't be. It is my opinion that we should honor the Constitution and allow only natural-born citizens to be POTUS. It is your opinion that we should allow foreign-born individuals the opportunity to run for POTUS, based on the idea that not doing so would be discriminatory. I don't agree with that.

Originally posted by sigma:
At least 2 times in this thread, I've countered this "point" of yours.

There are three requisites to being President:

1> Being a natural-born citizen
2> Being of at least 35 years of age
3> Having lived in the US at least 14 years

Numbers 2 and 3 are not discriminatory without basis, as there is a logical reasoning behind requiring a person to be at least 35 years of age and having lived in the US for 14 years.


And that someone must be born a U.S. citizen isn't logical? Refer to JaTo's post for a reason why it is logical.

Originally posted by sigma:
Does that mean that "everyone in the world" can become President. Technically, I suppose it does -- if they move here, become a citizen, are at least 35, live here at least 14 years before running, and can then convince the electorate to vote for them. Does that scare you? Does that somehow not make them good enough? It was good enough for our first 7 Presidents.


Why pick and choose which qualifications are discriminatory? Why is it okay to discriminate on the basis of age, but not nature of citizenship? To say the magical number of 35 makes you fit to be CoC is about as ridiculous as saying the magical age of 21 makes you responsible enough to drink.

Originally posted by sigma:
The most pertitent thing is that "every US citizen can't run for President". We're a nation founded on the fact that we're all equal, yet there's an explicit exception written into our own Constitution. Maybe we should go back to another exception of equality in the Constituion and consider blacks 3/5s of a vote because "The Constitution says so".


That was one condition under which the Constitution needed to change. We socially evolved to a point where it was unacceptable to restrict the representation of black people. To say that limiting presidential eligibility to natural-born citizens prohibits equality is quite ludicrous. That qualification is not meant to suppress a group, but rather to sustain the sanctity of another.