• 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
Quantrill said:
Madison was one of the main framers of the Constitution, if not the main one. His explantion suffices to show that the states retain their soverignty. Who ratified?

Your welcome.

Quantrill
Click to expand...

He is one man. He has a right to his opinion.
 
haymarket said:
He is one man. He has a right to his opinion.
Click to expand...

One man who framed the Constitution. Who was responsible for those words your reading. Thus he knows. States are soverign.

Why don't you answer the question as to who ratified? Scared? If your scared, say your scared.

Quantrill
 
haymarket said:
He is one man. He has a right to his opinion.
Click to expand...

You do know that how you would win this is find an important document that proves Madison wrong, yes?

We can all wait for your findings.
 
haymarket said:
Well I can sleep easier tonight with the knowledge that the Preamble now has your blessing as important.
Click to expand...

A false controversy you created. :roll:

So after that is established - so what?
Click to expand...

So what is that you can't quote the Preamble as if it's law... I mean, you can, but you'd be wrong.

We still have the Preamble there as a part of the Constitution and it helps us the rest of the document as it tells us what the purpose of it what and what the scope of our government is.
Click to expand...

As do the Articles of Confederation and the Jefferson Papers and the Federalist Papers...

Why is it that some want to use private musings of individuals that ARE NOT part of the Constitution to help explain it but are loathe to use the actual Constitution itself where ALL the Founders tell us what the scope of government is?
Click to expand...

Because, if you're looking for guidance and understanding of the document, you have to realize that it wasn't written in a vacuum. The Constitution is a document of compromise and thus often written in generalities and intentional vagueness.
 
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...

Succession, going to the very fabric of the nation, is way to big a deal for something like the tenth. Try again.
 
Quantrill said:
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
Click to expand...


You're not paying attention. According to Article VI of the Constitution, engagements entered into under the Articles are still in force, unless specifically contradicted in the Constitution. Under the "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union," the states entered into a perpetual union that was not rescinded by the Constitution.

It sucks when history and reality don't jive with the voices in your head, doesn't it?
 
Quantrill said:
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
Click to expand...

Apparently, it was a big help. It worked. The white American residents of Texas wanted to be part of the United States, independence was never meant as a permanent solution for Texas, just a step on the way.

BTW, your declartations of "Bull****" and "you don't know what your [sic] talking about" don't make it so.
 
rocket88 said:
You're not paying attention. According to Article VI of the Constitution, engagements entered into under the Articles are still in force, unless specifically contradicted in the Constitution. Under the "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union," the states entered into a perpetual union that was not rescinded by the Constitution.

It sucks when history and reality don't jive with the voices in your head, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Here's a thought experiment. Rhode Island sent no delegates to the constitutional convention, and they were the very last state to ratify. Here's a big "What if". What if Rhode Island had never ratified the constitution? What would you say its status would be? It seems to me that it would have remained an independent, sovereign country. Agree, disagree?
 
Centinel said:
Here's a thought experiment. Rhode Island sent no delegates to the constitutional convention, and they were the very last state to ratify. Here's a big "What if". What if Rhode Island had never ratified the constitution? What would you say its status would be? It seems to me that it would have remained an independent, sovereign country. Agree, disagree?
Click to expand...

I see where you are going. He won't see it though.
 
Quantrill said:
One man who framed the Constitution. Who was responsible for those words your reading. Thus he knows. States are soverign.

Why don't you answer the question as to who ratified? Scared? If your scared, say your scared.

Quantrill
Click to expand...

He is one man. One man of 55. One man of 39. We do NOT hold the opinion of any one man above the entire document.

We know that people from the states ratified the Constitution. Is there some dispute about this?
 
Henrin said:
You do know that how you would win this is find an important document that proves Madison wrong, yes?

We can all wait for your findings.
Click to expand...

Since Madison is NOT the final authority on this and his opinion is merely his opinion one need not go any further than that.
 
dabateman said:
As do the Articles of Confederation and the Jefferson Papers and the Federalist Papers...



Because, if you're looking for guidance and understanding of the document, you have to realize that it wasn't written in a vacuum. The Constitution is a document of compromise and thus often written in generalities and intentional vagueness.
Click to expand...

The Constitution itself is infinitely more important than any other writing about it in which an individual gives us their opinion. And the Preamble is part of the official Constitution.

And yes, some of it it is written in generalities and vagueness. And that is but one reason why we still debate it.
 
rocket88 said:
You're not paying attention. According to Article VI of the Constitution, engagements entered into under the Articles are still in force, unless specifically contradicted in the Constitution. Under the "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union," the states entered into a perpetual union that was not rescinded by the Constitution.

It sucks when history and reality don't jive with the voices in your head, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Are you really serious with this?

It is talking about engagements that are still standing that were made before the constitution. The articles would therefore be no longer standing and invalid. Don't even try the debt crap either. The debt situation didn't change and was still standing and WAS respected.

Get serious with your arguments before you declare victory.
 
haymarket said:
Since Madison is NOT the final authority on this and his opinion is merely his opinion one need not go any further than that.
Click to expand...

That is where you step up and show how its wrong. At least Rocket stepped up even if he thought the Articles were still standing.
 
Centinel said:
Here's a thought experiment. Rhode Island sent no delegates to the constitutional convention, and they were the very last state to ratify. Here's a big "What if". What if Rhode Island had never ratified the constitution? What would you say its status would be? It seems to me that it would have remained an independent, sovereign country. Agree, disagree?
Click to expand...

It's just a thought experiment. Since it's not actually reality, it doesn't really have any currency here.

It depends on what you mean by independent and sovereign. Those words at the time meant you were able to defend your own borders and control your own currency. Today, neither of those things it true for Germany, France, Italy...yet we consider them sovereign states, right? Assuming Rhode Island could have remained outside of the United States, it's doubtful that they could have defended themselves. When the British came back in 1812, they likely would have exploited the weakness, and it's doubtful that Rhode Island by itself could have held off the British for more than an afternoon. So calling Rhode Island in any sense sovereign by the rules of the 18th Century is not really accurate.

What about those states that never were independent in any sense? To name the ones that actually did secede, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Arkansas and Louisiana. These states went from being the possession of a European colonial power, to non-state territories of the United States, to states. If they had not "ratified the Constitution" they would have remained just that --territories, not states.
 
Henrin said:
Are you really serious with this?

It is talking about engagements that are still standing that were made before the constitution. The articles would therefore be no longer standing and invalid. Don't even try the debt crap either. The debt situation didn't change and was still standing and WAS respected.

Get serious with your arguments before you declare victory.
Click to expand...

So what part of the Constitution declares that part of the Articles invalid? If it had ever been meant for a state to be allowed to leave, that would have likely been written in the same way becoming a state was.

Yes, it's talking about engagements that were made before the Constitution. Among them, the engagement of the 13 states into a Union.
 
After all the crap that happened with Mexico before, during, and after their admission into the Union?!?!?
Not just NO, but HELL NO!

Centinel said:
It did then yes. However, I wonder whether with our current round the clock video news cycle the people of the 49 remaining states would support such an occupation. I wonder whether they would have the stomach for the violence that would necessary to subjugate their fellow Americans.
Click to expand...
The thing is, if they decided to secede they wouldn't be "fellow Americans" now, would they?
 
MoSurveyor said:
After all the crap that happened with Mexico before, during, and after their admission into the Union?!?!?
Not just NO, but HELL NO!

The thing is, if they decided to secede they wouldn't be "fellow Americans" now, would they?
Click to expand...

My bigger fear is that those people would become "the other" and there would be some popularized brutality since it involves the homeland.
 
Henrin said:
That is where you step up and show how its wrong. At least Rocket stepped up even if he thought the Articles were still standing.
Click to expand...

You do not seem to grasp that I could not care less what an individual believes. It matters not to me. It is irrelevant to me and I would not waste one brain cell debating it - particularly as the individual in question is not available for debate.
 
rocket88 said:
It depends on what you mean by independent and sovereign. Those words at the time meant you were able to defend your own borders and control your own currency. Today, neither of those things it true for Germany, France, Italy...yet we consider them sovereign states, right? Assuming Rhode Island could have remained outside of the United States, it's doubtful that they could have defended themselves. When the British came back in 1812, they likely would have exploited the weakness, and it's doubtful that Rhode Island by itself could have held off the British for more than an afternoon. So calling Rhode Island in any sense sovereign by the rules of the 18th Century is not really accurate.
Click to expand...

So they would have been sovereign, but militarily weak. As you say, they might have ended up being conquered.

This makes sense to me. The sovereignty of Rhode Island (along with the other colonies) was recognized by the treaty of Paris, so it's clear that at some point the colonies became sovereign countries. Additionally, under their articles of confederation each of these countries retained its sovereignty. They then ditched the articles and entered into a new compact.

Nowhere along the line do I see any of the states relinquishing their sovereignty. Yes, they delegated some of their authority to their agent, the union, but entering into a treaty with other countries does not signal that a country relinquishes its sovereignty.

What about those states that never were independent in any sense? To name the ones that actually did secede, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Arkansas and Louisiana. These states went from being the possession of a European colonial power, to non-state territories of the United States, to states. If they had not "ratified the Constitution" they would have remained just that --territories, not states.
Click to expand...
I would agree.
 
MoSurveyor said:
After all the crap that happened with Mexico before, during, and after their admission into the Union?!?!?
Not just NO, but HELL NO!

The thing is, if they decided to secede they wouldn't be "fellow Americans" now, would they?
Click to expand...

Of course they'd still be fellow Americans, since they would still be in America.
 
Centinel said:
Of course they'd still be fellow Americans, since they would still be in America.
Click to expand...

Do you mean still be in North America or North and South America or the United States of America?
 
haymarket said:
You do not seem to grasp that I could not care less what an individual believes. It matters not to me. It is irrelevant to me and I would not waste one brain cell debating it - particularly as the individual in question is not available for debate.
Click to expand...

Sigh..wonderful dodge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom