The government has the right to make laws about dress code.

At the beginning of his arguments, Pro stated that he stated his points but did not argue them. This is referred to the statement where it is said that the Elastic Clause gives a certain power to the government. What I pointed out was that this is not an argument rather than a fact. Likewise I could have stated that Article 1 gives Congress the right to pass laws. This statement does not prove why the government can make a law regarding dress code but rather that congress can take out a certain action. Also, I would like to state that Pro keeps referring to a dress code as "No sagging pants or miniskirts", when in fact it is just a dress code that could include long hair, no blue shirts, no black tuxedos, and so forth. While sagging pants and miniskirts may not get a person a specific job, it is not the government's problem that employers do not desire to employ a person with the "hipster" outward appearance, nor is it the government's jurisdiction to force a person to have a certain outward appearance. Pro also stated that a good point regarding why the government should enforce a dress code strengthens the points why they can enforce a national dress code. This is not a valid point since you have to take into account that just because you should do something doesn't mean you can. For example, a person might think it a good idea to overthrow the government, but in reality cannot possibly do that without major assistance. Main point, just because you should do something doesn't mean you can, which my opponent stated in his argument. Unbeknownst to Pro, some states have indeed made laws involving dress code that have gone against one's religious beliefs. For example in a certain part of Texas, long hair on boys was prohibited, which happened to go against Adriel Arocha's religious Native American beliefs. Residents of the Needville School District passed a strict dress code that prohibited long hair because they wanted children in the area to look the same so that they well reflected small-town America. This dress code is clearly unconstitutional and like Needville the government should not have the right to make me look a certain way just so that a country, or a school district, can look pretty and therefore have a good reputation. Pro stated that removing inappropriate clothing will make society a better place and decrease gangs as well as gang related violence, but as I have already stated, the removing the apparel will not remove the message behind it. This is not helping the situation, as Pro stated it, but rather feeding the fire and angering people for not allowing the clothes. Also, my opponent stated that a dress code would lead to a better run government which would lead to a better economy. To this I say, "Well that escalated quickly!". On a more serious note, I would like to state that according to theguardian.com, one of the main problems of the U.S. economy is a major beating to the middle class, not an un-smooth government that is partially failing due to a quite-less-than-perfect-society caused partially by "sagging pants" and "miniskirts". My opponent pointed out that the Elastic Clause overrules AMENDMENT 1, arguably the most important amendment in the Bill of Rights, but does not include a source that proves that this is true. Anyways, assuming that Congress could overrule amendment 1 via power of the elastic clause, if you take away a person's ability to express themselves freely or to believe freely in any religion, what do you have? You get a dictatorship, a tyranny, you are taking away their, our freedom. The government should not tell me what to look like just so the country gets a certain reputation based on their appearance. The government should be a force to protect my rights, not take them away. Is that not why we broke away from Britain in 1776? In the grievances towards the King included in the Declaration of Independence, it is stated that, "He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good." Like the horrendous Acts enforced on American colonists, any laws regarding dress code only limit our freedom, for what purpose? What does the government gain by telling its people to have a certain appearance. Finally, my opponent stated again that sagging pants and miniskirts will not get you a job. Again this is not the government's fault that private employers do not wish to have that certain apparel as the face of their company. Private and public cases are two separate things and standards do not need to be the same. It is also stated that, "If it is denying jobs, then it shouldn't be allowed in public." Here is a counterexample to that point. A man is denied a job because he does not have a degree in engineering. So, because it is denying him a job, it should therefore be prohibited for him to be on American soil without a degree in engineering. My own points: 1. Like I stated before, amendment one gives citizens the right to express themselves through their speech. I would like to point out that the beginning of this amendment, or the Establishment Clause, states that "Congress shall make no laws..." The keyword in that clause is NO as in zero, zip, nada. 2. A certain appearance of a person is also not a necessary reason to make a law banning certain attire. Making these laws would not benefit the government or the economy and would not change people's actions. If laws regarding dress code are deemed necessary, where does it stop? Congress can then make any law, which leads to tyranny and throws our freedom out the window. In conclusion, The United States of America is a place where people of all appearances can come and be themselves, express themselves however they would like, where people can come to exercise their religion. If the government has the right to make laws regarding dress code, Oh how great our destruction will be, we will end up like any other tyrannical government just like the one we left when those 56 men signed the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. Sources: 1. examiner.com 2. archives.gov 3. theguardian.com