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 70 of 124 FirstFirst ... 2060686970717280120 ... LastLast
Results 691 to 700 of 1234

Thread: Texas secession?

  1. #691
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,195

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quantrill View Post
    Sure, the union based on the Confederation. Shame they threw it out the window and we are under a different Constitution. A different union.

    Quantrill
    And according to Article VI of the Constitution, all engagements entered into under the Articles are still valid. The only way that's not true, is if the Constitution explicitly says something else.

    If, as Centinel does, you view it as a treaty of sorts, the "treaty" of the Articles of Confederation, which by its wording is a "perpetual union," is valid. It is as valid as the treaties and agreements entered into with France during the Revolution and immediately following.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  2. #692
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,195

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Centinel View Post
    Yes of course. The articles had no explicit duration, and thus the treaty was considered to be perpetual. That is to say, it had no built-in sunset provision.

    This has no bearing on whether the signatories were free, independent, and sovereign states prior to entering the treaty, nor does it imply that states were not free to leave the treaty, which they did in fact do.
    So why is that "treaty" less valid than others?


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  3. #693
    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 rocket88 View Post
    And according to Article VI of the Constitution, all engagements entered into under the Articles are still valid. The only way that's not true, is if the Constitution explicitly says something else.
    Please look up that clause. I told you already why it doesn't apply to the AOC. This shouldn't be hard to understand.

  4. #694
    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 MoSurveyor View Post
    They signed the Declaration, which plainly showed they were "The United States", then they signed the Articles, which showed the same thing. You started quoting the Articles to back your claim, not me. Now that the Articles quit working for you, you want to leave them behind and move the goal posts again. But by the time you get to the Constitution it all over with. You backtracked to those other documents originally because you were spinning your wheels trying to use the Constitution.
    The articles have not quit working for me. They still clearly show, as does the treaty of paris, that the colonies were free, sovereign, and independent stats. The fact that it had no expiration and was thus perpetual means nothing. If a state is sovereign (which the former colonies were), then entering into a treaty does not indicate that they are relinquishing their sovereignty, especially when that treaty explicitly indicates they they retain their preexisting sovereignty.

    So, having established that the states were sovereign prior to entering into their first confederation under the articles, and also establishing the fact that they retained their sovereignty under these articles, the question then becomes, when did they state that they were relinquishing their sovereignty under the constitution, and where in the constitution does is the prohibition against any of the sovereign states leaving the compact?

  5. #695
    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 rocket88 View Post
    So why is that "treaty" less valid than others?
    It's not less valid than others, nor did I say it was.

  6. #696
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Centinel View Post
    The articles have not quit working for me. They still clearly show, as does the treaty of paris, that the colonies were free, sovereign, and independent stats. The fact that it had no expiration and was thus perpetual means nothing. If a state is sovereign (which the former colonies were), then entering into a treaty does not indicate that they are relinquishing their sovereignty, especially when that treaty explicitly indicates they they retain their preexisting sovereignty.
    The Articles didn't state the document (Articles) was perpetual, it stated the Union was perpetual. I'm sorry you can't see the difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by Centinel View Post
    So, having established that the states were sovereign prior to entering into their first confederation under the articles, and also establishing the fact that they retained their sovereignty under these articles, the question then becomes, when did they state that they were relinquishing their sovereignty under the constitution, and where in the constitution does is the prohibition against any of the sovereign states leaving the compact?
    Only in your own mind have you established these facts. I think you've mis-interpreted those documents. Prior to signing the Declaration they were English colonies. After signing the Declaration they were "The United States". No where in the middle were they countries unto themselves and at no time since 4 July 1776 has that been the case.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  7. #697
    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 MoSurveyor View Post
    The Articles didn't state the document (Articles) was perpetual, it stated the Union was perpetual. I'm sorry you can't see the difference.

    Only in your own mind have you established these facts. I think you've mis-interpreted those documents. Prior to signing the Declaration they were English colonies. After signing the Declaration they were "The United States". No where in the middle were they countries unto themselves and at no time since 4 July 1776 has that been the case.
    You continue to insist that the former colonies were never sovereign states despite the fact that the are expressly described as free, sovereign, and independent in the articles?

  8. #698
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Centinel View Post
    You continue to insist that the former colonies were never sovereign states despite the fact that the are expressly described as free, sovereign, and independent in the articles?
    The Articles also repeatedly describe the Union as perpetual. So, yes, if your assessment precludes a perpetual Union, which you seem to be asserting it does, then I do not agree with your assessment. None of the States were ever nations unto themselves.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 05-24-12 at 11:25 AM.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  9. #699
    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 MoSurveyor View Post
    The Articles also repeatedly describe the Union as perpetual. So, yes, if your assessment precludes a perpetual Union, which you seem to be asserting it does, then I do not agree with your assessment. None of the States were ever nations unto themselves.
    Agree to disagree, I suppose.

  10. #700
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Centinel View Post
    Agree to disagree, I suppose.
    I take that phrase, "free, sovereign, and independent", to mean the States were that way with respect to each other. In other words, no State had any rights over any other State. I think it also means what the 10th Amendment actually says, that States have all the power except what they handed over to the Fed.

    However, all the things they expressly handed over to the Fed are exactly those things that make an independent country on the world stage; international military, printing and control of money, negotiating treaties with foreign powers, controlling imports & exports, etc. It seems very plain to me that no State ever declared itself to be a nation unto itself. We have and (God willing) always will be the United States.

    If that means we agree to disagree then so be it.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 05-24-12 at 11:37 AM.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

Posting Permissions

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