• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas secession?

Texas secession?

  • Anytime they want

    Votes: 47 54.7%

  • Bad times only

    Votes: 1 1.2%

  • No way

    Votes: 35 40.7%

  • I don't know

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 3 3.5%
  • Total voters
    86
Goshin said:
Perhaps. Did the USA repay Britain for all the money spent building early America, after we seceeded from the British Empire? I've never run across any info that we did...
Click to expand...

The federal government took responsibility for the debts of the colonies.
 
Wiggen said:
No, you're one of the leach states - ones that take in more than they pay out. You and most of the rest of the redneck south.
Click to expand...


I resent that statement.

You wouldn't make such a generalized, broad-brush name-calling insult against a RACE... oh no, that wouldn't be PC.... but you feel free to make it against all inhabitants of a region.

Hypocrisy.
 
Mycroft said:
I personally don't mind if Texas secedes, but I can see dangers to the US if it does. There would be the danger of the federal government being seen as weak if they allow this to happen. There would be the danger of other States following Texas's lead and attempting to secede as well.
Click to expand...

Yepp, if :hitsfan: they sure would. :)

Mycroft said:
Bringing up the Soviet Union spawns another point...why would Texas want to secede? More to the point, what conditions would have to be present to cause Texas to want to secede?
Click to expand...

Well, imagine Texas is no longer pleased about Washington DC "following" the Constitution. They may decide to go their own way.

Mycroft said:
Consider the Soviet Union. Now, I haven't studied the reasons for their collapse, but it's my impression that rather than their currency collapsing or something along those lines, the main reason for the Soviet Statess secessions was to get out from under oppression. I think something along THOSE lines would be sufficient justification...but I don't see evidence of that kind of oppression.
Click to expand...

There is one MAJOR difference though - the USA was built from within (the Constitutions as the nucleus of the country) and the USSR was built from the outside, as an empire oppressing and ruling different ethnic nations, trying to join them together (much as the EU now). Most of the Americans joined America after the Constitution, most of the soviet people woke up with a Constitution they never chose (it was imposed on them).
 
Last edited:
Centinel said:
Maybe it wouldn't. But one would hope that it would provide enough of a benefit to make people want to remain members. There are valid reasons for states to form federations, so maybe the union wouldn't disappear. It might just get reshuffled somewhat, or broken up into two or three neighbor federations.

My position is that it is the right of the people of each sovereign state to decide into what compacts and treaties they wish to engage.
Click to expand...
"To form a more perfect union"

I think the point is the states aren't "sovereign" and never were. Some of the states might have thought they were, but the Civil War proved them wrong. The federal government has supremacy over the states and always has.

"the union...the Court said, "never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation." Rather, "It began among the Colonies. ...It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States

The pledge of alligience says: "....one nation, under God, INDIVISBLE...."

Apparently, you didn't you understand what you've been pledging to most of your life.
 
Goshin said:
I resent that statement.

You wouldn't make such a generalized, broad-brush name-calling insult against a RACE... oh no, that wouldn't be PC.... but you feel free to make it against all inhabitants of a region.

Hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

States are not races Goshin. Saying that people would treat different things differently is saying people are acting appropriately.
 
Wiggen said:
No, you're one of the leach states - ones that take in more than they pay out. You and most of the rest of the redneck south.
Click to expand...

wow man, wiggen I would have thought more of you than to make this statement...that is untrue
 
rocket88 said:
That's the overly simplified romanticized verision, but they had the full non-military support of the US. No troops, but plenty of support. Crack a book on the subject.
Click to expand...

Oh. I see. Texas couln't have won its independence without the US moral support. Big help.

In other words, you don't know what your talking about.

Quantrill
 
Matt Foley said:
That clause you quoted means Jack.
Click to expand...

So the ratification process and documents mean nothing to you. Understandable. They meant nothing to the North in 1861 either.

So, whose the traitors to the Constitution. Ummm.

Quantrill
 
rocket88 said:
Ok, here's why it's unconstituional

. Article VI, US Constitution

The formal name of the Articles of Conferation is "The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union." Since the States entered into a perpetual union with the Articles, that "Engagement" is still valid under the Constitution.
Click to expand...

That 'perpetual union' wasn't so perpetual was it. Since in 1787 they threw the aricles of Confederation out the window and created a new one.

Quantrill
 
rocket88 said:
The Articles were long before Lincoln. There was no argument along those lines because nobody tried to secede before that, so it was a moot point. To say that the argument was never made before is like saying "Nobody thought Obamacare was unconstitutional in 1980."

It wasn't an issue before that, so yes, nobody used the idea until they needed to. Because it wasn't necessary back then.
Click to expand...

Really? Hartford Convention of 1814. And look, it is New England states that are considering secession.

Quantrill
 
I see this as a case of the constitution being flawed. It should have addressed this question specifically and because it didn't we are stuck debating this topic that has no real legal answer. It could equally be yes or no.
 
lizzie said:
You'd best be careful about who you're wanting to leave, as we are likely the ones paying a huge chunk of the bills.
Click to expand...

You wanna leave - leave.
 
Moot said:
"To form a more perfect union"

I think the point is the states aren't "sovereign" and never were. Some of the states might have thought they were, but the Civil War proved them wrong. The federal government has supremacy over the states and always has.

"the union...the Court said, "never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation." Rather, "It began among the Colonies. ...It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation..."
Secession in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The pledge of alligience says: "....one nation, under God, INDIVISBLE...."

Apparently, you didn't you understand what you've been pledging to most of your life.
Click to expand...

A pledge is just a pledge. Its not a constitution.

Concerning the preamble to the Constitution, James Madison said when wanting to remove any doubt as to the phrase 'we the people', " Who are parties to it [the Constitution]? The people---but not the people as composing one great body; but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties..."

Quantrill
 
Quantrill said:
A pledge is just a pledge. Its not a constitution.

Concerning the preamble to the Constitution, James Madison said when wanting to remove any doubt as to the phrase 'we the people', " Who are parties to it [the Constitution]? The people---but not the people as composing one great body; but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties..."

Quantrill
Click to expand...

Where in the Constitution is this mention of "thirteen sovereignties"?
 
Moot said:
"To form a more perfect union"
Click to expand...

Which....gives no power.


The pledge of alligience says: "....one nation, under God, INDIVISBLE...."

Apparently, you didn't you understand what you've been pledging to most of your life.
Click to expand...

:doh

It was created in 1892 which would obviously make it AFTER the civil war and Texas v. White. There is little doubt it WOULD support the ruling.
 
megaprogman said:
I see this as a case of the constitution being flawed. It should have addressed this question specifically and because it didn't we are stuck debating this topic that has no real legal answer. It could equally be yes or no.
Click to expand...

It was covered by the tenth. Stop acting like it wasn't covered.

The preamble gives no power and it is talking about the PEOPLE in that part used in Texas v White. Is this really this hard to understand? I mean really, is it?
 
Henrin said:
It was covered by the tenth. Stop acting like it wasn't covered.

The preamble gives no power and it is talking about the PEOPLE in that part used in Texas v white. Is this really this hard to understand? I mean really, is it?
Click to expand...

The Preamble is part of the official US Constitution. In it, the 55 men who wrote it and the 39 who signed it tell us very specifically why the wrote it and what they envision the scope of government is. They are the most important words to understand everything that follows.
 
haymarket said:
Pay you for what ?
Click to expand...

Hey you are the guy that supports current law on paying the government when you leave, not me so thatquestion is for you to answer. What are they paying you for when they want out?
 
haymarket said:
The Preamble is part of the official US Constitution. In it, the 55 men who wrote it and the 39 who signed it tell us very specifically why the wrote it and what they envision the scope of government is. They are the most important words to understand everything that follows.
Click to expand...

haymarket just blew my mind with stating the obvious. Next he will tell me where babies come from.
 
haymarket said:
Where in the Constitution is this mention of "thirteen sovereignties"?
Click to expand...

I just gave you a quote from Madison one of the main figures in the creation of the Constitution.

Who ratified the Constitution? The people, or the States?

Quantrill
 
Henrin said:
Hey you are the guy that supports current law on paying the government when you leave, not me so thatquestion is for you to answer. What are they paying you for when they want out?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are talking about. It is obvious that neither do you. Any person who wants to leave the USA may do so.

Why does anybody need to "pay you" when you do so? And what exactly are they paying you for?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom