View Poll Results: Texas secession?

Voters
115. You may not vote on this poll
  • Anytime they want

    69 60.00%
  • Bad times only

    2 1.74%
  • No way

    41 35.65%
  • I don't know

    0 0%
  • Other

    3 2.61%
Page 117 of 124 FirstFirst ... 1767107115116117118119 ... LastLast
Results 1,161 to 1,170 of 1234

Thread: Texas secession?

  1. #1161
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Penn's Woods
    Last Seen
    09-01-12 @ 09:09 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,984

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    For the fourth time, its found in the power delegated to the Supreme Court, Article 3 of the constitution. You should read it sometime.
    Article 3 assigns the judicial power to the supreme court.

    Let me ask you a question. If someone were to ask you, "Where in the constitution does it say that the president's term is 4 years?" Would you say, article 3? Or would you say Article 2, section 1?

    If the supreme court were to decide that the president's term was to be 5 years rather than 4, would you just shrug your shoulders and say, "Well, article 3 gives the supreme court the power to interpret the constitution, so I guess the supreme court must be right..."

    I am asking where in the constitution it says that a state is prohibited from leaving the union. I am well aware that the judicial power is vested in the supreme court, and I am well aware that the supreme court has ruled that secession is unconstitutional. However, I am questioning the validity of their ruling, and am asking you upon what they based their ruling.

    You, of course, will respond with something like, "For the fifth time, because the supreme court said so", so I don't hold out much hope of any further fruitful dialog. I'm hitting the rack. See you all tomorrow.

  2. #1162
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:04 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,460

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Centinel View Post
    Um, no. I am basing my opinion on the constitution.
    No your not. You're basing your opinion on your own opinion of the constitution, not what it really says or does.

    I have no idea upon what you are basing your position, but it certainly is not the constitution.
    If you have no idea then you don't understand the constitution.

    The constitution clearly says that powers not prohibited to the states are reserved to the states. There is no prohibition on the power of a state to leave the union, therefore, states have that power.
    What is it about the Supreme court that you don't understand? You seem wanton to ignore it's existence in this discussion.

  3. #1163
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    On a previous page, I provided the reasoning from Chief Justice Chase.



    and more from Chase
    And yet you don't seem to understand he just created power when none existed and created a false reality in using the AOC as if it was still standing. It also completely misses the point it was the PEOPLE in reference, but don't let any of this stop you.
    Last edited by Henrin; 05-28-12 at 11:38 PM.

  4. #1164
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:54 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,605

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    And yet you don't seem to understand he just created power when none existed and created a false reality in using the AOC as if it was still standing. It also completely misses the point it was the PEOPLE in reference, but don't let any of this stop you.
    The power where none existed is the power to quit the nation.

    It does not exist. Thus it is not impacted by the Tenth Amendment.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  5. #1165
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    The power where none existed is the power to quit the nation.

    It does not exist. Thus it is not impacted by the Tenth Amendment.
    Keep telling yourself that the words "to form a more perfect nation" has power hay and continue to not find any evidence behind such a belief system.

    This **** is almost as dumb as Hank Johnson saying the preamble allows UHC or his famous capsizing island comment.
    Last edited by Henrin; 05-28-12 at 11:57 PM.

  6. #1166
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:54 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,605

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Keep telling yourself that the words "to form a more perfect nation" has power hay and continue to not find any evidence behind such a belief system.
    I do not have the slightest idea what you are talking about. Do you? Why then cannot you explain it?
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  7. #1167
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    I do not have the slightest idea what you are talking about. Do you? Why then cannot you explain it?
    I did. What part of it having no power what so ever do you not understand?

  8. #1168
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:04 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,460

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    I did. What part of it having no power what so ever do you not understand?
    I'm not seeing where you get that Chief Justice Chase "created power when none existed and created a false reality". Where do you get this from and don't say the Constitution because the Constitution explicity gives the Supreme Court the power to interpret the Constitution.

  9. #1169
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    I'm not seeing where you get that Chief Justice Chase "created power when none existed and created a false reality". Where do you get this from and don't say the Constitution because the Constitution explicity gives the Supreme Court the power to interpret the Constitution.
    The founders?? What do you use when you figure out if the Supreme court got it right? The court? That is just laughable if so.

    False reality #1:

    AOC is not standing and Article six only covers standing engagements at the time. This does not reference the AOC so bring it up is like bringing up the monsters under your bed when you are thirty six. It's completely pathetic for someone to do in his position. When the founders make it a point to say they are throwing it out and that article six is only covering engagements left standing they meant it.

    False reality #2:

    The words to form a more perfect union was never said by any founder to have power and it was merely describing the goals of what they were putting out. It had nothing to do with states rights or secession and it never gave any authority to anyone.

    Its interesting that all three Justices that went by the name of Chase were douchebags. At least one was punished for it.
    Last edited by Henrin; 05-29-12 at 12:23 AM.

  10. #1170
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:04 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,460

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    The founders?? What do you use when you figure out if the Supreme court got it right? The court? That is just laughable if so.
    Courts are not infallible to be sure. But most of them do try to follow the Constitution as humanly possible.

    False reality #1:

    AOC is not standing and Article six only covers standing engagements at the time. This does not reference the AOC so bring it up is like bringing up the monsters under your bed when you are thirty six. It's completely pathetic for someone to do in his position. When the founders make it a point to say they are throwing it out and that article six is only covering engagements left standing they meant it.
    Article Six references the AOC as the Confederation and says that all debts contracted and engagements entered into under the Confederation remain valid under the new Constitution. One of those engagements entered into was the formation of a perpetual union among the states. Article six doesn't dissolve that engagement, it validates it.

    False reality #2:

    The words to form a more perfect union was never said by any founder to have power and it was merely describing the goals of what they were putting out. It had nothing to do with states rights or secession and it never gave any authority to anyone.
    The very first thing the Preamble says is "We the People of the United States" which means the people were already a united states before the constitution was written. How were they were united? By the AoC of course. The Preamble was meant to show the intention of the existing "United States" to form a stronger national government in order to make a more perfect union. The union under the AoC was less than perfect because the central government was weak and so the Constitution was ordained by the people to form a stronger one with more permanency.

    But you're right the courts don't use the Preamble to base their rulings on, but they do however look to it to help them find the framers "intentions", just as they look to the Federalist Papers, the AoC, the Declaration of Independence, letters and essays written by the founding fathers before and after the signing of the Constitution and more.

    Chief Justice Chase was right, it was the intention of the people of the United States to form a stronger more permanent union....

    "....The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [p725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

    When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.
    Texas v. White - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Last edited by Moot; 05-29-12 at 05:15 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •