View Poll Results: Would you support the decision of Texas to peacefully and democratically secede, if voted upon

Voters
134. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    69 51.49%
  • No

    61 45.52%
  • Bumbershoot

    4 2.99%
Page 49 of 131 FirstFirst ... 3947484950515999 ... LastLast
Results 481 to 490 of 1310

Thread: Would you support the right of Texas to secede?

  1. #481
    Sage
    Paperview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    The Road Less Travelled
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    8,409

    Re: Would you support the right of Texas to secede?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post



    sorry but you cannot get around the founders, and what was taught of the constitution before the civl war.......s

    You've been smacked down. Accept it.

  2. #482
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    06-15-17 @ 10:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,333

    Re: Would you support the right of Texas to secede?

    time for you to take a big smack!

    Document 5

    Records of the Federal Convention

    [1:54; Madison, 31 May]

    The last clause of Resolution 6. authorizing an exertion of the force of the whole agst. a delinquent State came next into consideration.

    Mr. Madison, observed that the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not individually.--, A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force agst. a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound. He hoped that such a system would be framed as might render this recourse unnecessary, and moved that the clause be postponed. This motion was agreed to nem. con.

    [1:61; McHenry, 31 May]

    And to call forth the force of the union against any member of the union failing to fulfil its duty under the articles thereof.

    postponed.
    <--------------


    Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15: Records of the Federal Convention

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Avalon Project - Madison Debates - May 31



    The other clauses giving powers necessary to preserve harmony among the States to negative all State laws contravening in the opinion of the Nat. Leg. the articles of union, down to the last clause, (the words "or any treaties subsisting under the authority of the Union," being added after the words "contravening &c. the articles of the Union," on motion of Dr. FRANKLIN) were agreed to witht. debate or dissent. The last clause of Resolution 6. [FN11] authorizing an exertion of the force of the whole agst. a delinquent State came next into consideration.

    Mr. MADISON, observed that the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not individually. -A union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force agst. a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound. He hoped that such a system would be framed as might render this recourse [FN12] unnecessary, and moved that the clause be postponed. This motion was agreed to nem. con.

    The Committee then rose & the House

    Adjourned
    <--------------


    your post confirmed what i have said all along!
    Last edited by Master PO; 05-04-15 at 07:27 PM.

  3. #483
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    06-15-17 @ 10:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,333

    Re: Would you support the right of Texas to secede?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paperview View Post
    More akin to a cheating husband who decides he wants a divorce and declares:
    too bad, I'm keeping the house.

    That said: both are poor analogies. The system we set up to govern is not like a husband and wife squabble.

    oh, its exactly like that, some people when secession is mentioned they go crazy, and say that if any state would seek to leave, they will use force to stop it.

  4. #484
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    06-15-17 @ 10:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,333

    Re: Would you support the right of Texas to secede?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paperview View Post
    You've been smacked down. Accept it.
    ..the next post of mine.... killed your previous post when you, yourself proved me right...

  5. #485
    Sage
    DA60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,212

    Re: Would you support the right of Texas to secede?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paperview View Post
    We have a system set up to change our Government and laws. We are a Republic.

    It's worked pretty damn good for lo these many years.

    If the people don't like their government, they have the power to alter or abolish it peaceably. The colonies did not have that power.

    Now, if you don't believe that, then ok. Have your anarchy
    So what exactly do you propose to do if Texas decides to leave - start a war to force them to stay?
    'What kind of sick and twisted toy factory is this?'
    'We are all the sum of our tears. Too little and the ground is not fertile, and nothing can grow there. Too much, the best of us is washed away.'
    "Better to be dead and cool, than alive and uncool."

  6. #486
    Sage
    Paperview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    The Road Less Travelled
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    8,409

    Re: Would you support the right of Texas to secede?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    <garbage snipped>
    That had nothing to do with secession.

    The direct question, when posed, was answered when NY was considering it's ratification of the Constitution. At that time it was proposed:

    "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

    A vote was taken, and it was negatived.

    Elliot’s Debates: Volume 2 | Teaching American History

    Historian Amar goes on to explain the pivotal moment of agreement:

    "But exactly how were these states united? Did a state that said yes in the 1780's retain the right to unilaterally say no later on, and thereby secede? If not, why not?

    Once again, it was in New York that the answer emerged most emphatically. At the outset of the Poughkeepsie convention, anti-Federalists held a strong majority. The tide turned when word arrived that New Hampshire and Virginia had said yes to the Constitution, at which point anti-Federalists proposed a compromise: they would vote to ratify, but if the new federal government failed to embrace various reforms that they favored, "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

    At the risk of alienating swing voters and losing on the ultimate ratification vote, Federalists emphatically opposed the compromise.

    In doing so, they made clear to everyone - in New York and in the 12 other states where people were following the New York contest with interest - that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession.

    Alexander Hamilton read aloud a letter at the Poughkeepsie convention that he had received from James Madison stating that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever."

    Hamilton and John Jay then added their own words, which the New York press promptly reprinted: "a reservation of a right to withdraw" was "inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."

    Thus, it was New York where the document became an irresistible reality and where its central meaning - one nation, democratic and indivisible - emerged with crystal clarity."

    Conventional Wisdom--A Commentary by Prof. Akhil Amar Yale Law Schoo

  7. #487
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    07-22-17 @ 10:01 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,259

    Re: Would you support the right of Texas to secede?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    oh, its exactly like that, some people when secession is mentioned they go crazy, and say that if any state would seek to leave, they will use force to stop it.
    It wouldn't be the first time it happened

  8. #488
    Sage
    Paperview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    The Road Less Travelled
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    8,409

    Re: Would you support the right of Texas to secede?

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    So what exactly do you propose to do if Texas decides to leave - start a war to force them to stay?
    Federal property belonging to the whole of the US, and paid by all of US taxpayers is not something the state gets to steal.

    There would necessarily be war if they decided to take over this property.

    It didn't work out well last time.

  9. #489
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    06-15-17 @ 10:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,333

    Re: Would you support the right of Texas to secede?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paperview View Post
    That had nothing to do with secession.

    The direct question, when posed, was answered when NY was considering it's ratification of the Constitution. At that time it was proposed:

    "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

    A vote was taken, and it was negatived.

    Elliot’s Debates: Volume 2 | Teaching American History

    Historian Amar goes on to explain the pivotal moment of agreement:

    "But exactly how were these states united? Did a state that said yes in the 1780's retain the right to unilaterally say no later on, and thereby secede? If not, why not?

    Once again, it was in New York that the answer emerged most emphatically. At the outset of the Poughkeepsie convention, anti-Federalists held a strong majority. The tide turned when word arrived that New Hampshire and Virginia had said yes to the Constitution, at which point anti-Federalists proposed a compromise: they would vote to ratify, but if the new federal government failed to embrace various reforms that they favored, "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

    At the risk of alienating swing voters and losing on the ultimate ratification vote, Federalists emphatically opposed the compromise.

    In doing so, they made clear to everyone - in New York and in the 12 other states where people were following the New York contest with interest - that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession.

    Alexander Hamilton read aloud a letter at the Poughkeepsie convention that he had received from James Madison stating that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever."

    Hamilton and John Jay then added their own words, which the New York press promptly reprinted: "a reservation of a right to withdraw" was "inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."

    Thus, it was New York where the document became an irresistible reality and where its central meaning - one nation, democratic and indivisible - emerged with crystal clarity."

    Conventional Wisdom--A Commentary by Prof. Akhil Amar Yale Law Schoo
    lol...you failed in your smack down, now you try something else?

    the convention was clear, the federal government was not GRANTED the power to preserve the harmony of the UNION.

    YOUR VOTE, WAS TAKEN BY THE NY RATIFYING CONVENTION...NOT THE FOUNDERS.

  10. #490
    Sage

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Texas, Vegas, Colombia
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 05:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,295

    Re: Would you support the right of Texas to secede?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paperview View Post
    Federal property belonging to the whole of the US, and paid by all of US taxpayers is not something the state gets to steal.

    There would necessarily be war if they decided to take over this property.

    It didn't work out well last time.
    or they could purchase it....

    there are more options than "steal" or "take over".... hell, it might even be leased, depending on the nature and use of the land in question.

    it doesn't have to come to war.... to wage a war would be a choice, not a necessity.

Page 49 of 131 FirstFirst ... 3947484950515999 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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