• 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!

Would you support the right of Texas to secede?

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

  • Total voters
    133
Gaius46 said:
I know what Article IV Section 3 means. It counters the argument that Texas could legally divide itself in 2 or 5 or 10 and force the United States to kick it out of the Union. Note the "B" in the post I was responding to.

SC Justices Joseph Story and Salmon Chase both argue that the Constitution amends the Articles of Confederation and the Articles call for a perpetual union. Additionally there's at least one SC precedent for interpreting the Constitution as calling for a perpetual union. Given it's importance I'd also argue if the drafters contemplated that states would be allowed to leave the union it would be explicitly mentioned in the Constitution and not left to chance as an unnamed power delegated to the states.
Click to expand...

question..... do the people have a right to alter or abolish the government they have?
 
Andalublue said:
Y'see there's a mismisconception right away. There's no evidence that Scotland could do it, since they've decided not to try.

Fortunately that wouldn't be my problem, would it. Do you accept that Texas would have responsibility for any of it? BTW, Scottish leaders accepted that they would accept responsibility for their share of the UK national debt.
Click to expand...

I think Texas should be responsible for its fair share, sure, but what that "fair share" is would likely be a point of contention.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
The Supreme Court emphatically ruled that states do not have the right to secede. See Texas v. White. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/74/700

Now there are those that would say that they interpret the constitution differently. Well, that doesn't matter. The federal court system is the ultimate arbiters of what is and is not constitutional. If the supreme court ruled that you have a constitutional right to a Texan wiping your ass every day for the rest of your adult life, then that is a constitutional right you would have. Your opinion of what is and is not constitutional is irrelevant unless you sit on the federal judiciary.
Click to expand...

The question then becomes, does Texas really have to listen to the Feds ruling, and by what mechanism could the fed govt enforce its rulings?

For example, say Texas decides to simply fire all federal judges, prosecutors, etc. and not reappoint anyone to fill their places. How would you enforce federal law in Texas if Texas simply refused , peacefully, to cooperate?
 
Peter Grimm said:
While unlikely anytime too soon, it's not unthinkable that one day, Texas might vote to secede from the United States and re-establish itself as an independent nation.

If done in a peaceful and democratic manner...that is, if the people of Texas overwhelmingly voted to withdraw from the U.S. In a referendum similar to the one recently held in Scotland, would you support the right of Texas to go her own way?
Click to expand...

Yes of course, and so should Washington if they so choose to do so. I don't think that Washington should only support such actions in other countries. But then I never thought that "preservation of the union" was ever worth the cost of 600,000 American lives, either!
 
Peter Grimm said:
The congressional joint resolution for the annexation of Texas, passed on March 1, 1845, provided that new states, not to exceed four, could be carved out of Texas, requiring only a majority vote in the state.

Article IV section3, as you've quoted it, doesn't apply because Texas already has this approval from congress, as it was the U.S. Congress that passed said annexation agreement in 1845.

And, again, the U.S. Public didnt have the stomach for war in Vietnam or Iraq. They were dragged kicking and screaming in to WW1 and 2. Do you really think the U.S. Public would tolerate a war so close to home, to see the blood of people just like them spilled day after day? I highly doubt it.
Click to expand...

The resolution is unconstitutional. Congress does not have the power make that agreement. The Constitution specifically states that a state may not be subdivided.
 
Peter Grimm said:
That was far from a full embargo.

The American People just don't have the stomach to do the things you're suggesting, especially since so many have family in Texas
Click to expand...

Was there not a civil damn war over secession?

My brother is my brother until he's my goddamn enemy.
 
Peter Grimm said:
The question then becomes, does Texas really have to listen to the Feds ruling, and by what mechanism could the fed govt enforce its rulings?

For example, say Texas decides to simply fire all federal judges, prosecutors, etc. and not reappoint anyone to fill their places. How would you enforce federal law in Texas if Texas simply refused , peacefully, to cooperate?
Click to expand...

Cut every last dime of federal subsidies heading anywhere near Texas. There is always that option.

Quid pro quo.

You become a jackass we become a jackass kind of scenario.
 
Peter Grimm said:
The question then becomes, does Texas really have to listen to the Feds ruling, and by what mechanism could the fed govt enforce its rulings?

For example, say Texas decides to simply fire all federal judges, prosecutors, etc. and not reappoint anyone to fill their places. How would you enforce federal law in Texas if Texas simply refused , peacefully, to cooperate?
Click to expand...

The military would come in and force the state of Texas to comply just like segregationists were forced to comply with federal rulings back in the 50s and 60s. I am not sure what kind of a fantasy world you are living in if you think that any state could just ignore the federal judiciary without consequence.
 
Gaius46 said:
The resolution is unconstitutional. Congress does not have the power make that agreement. The Constitution specifically states that a state may not be subdivided.
Click to expand...

States may not be subdivided without the approval of congress. Congress pre-approved Texas in 1845, therefore it's up to Texas whether to split
 
Gaius46 said:
Under US law? Yes. Via the Constitutional amendment process.
Click to expand...

if the people were going to alter something of the federal government they would via an amendment, if they were going to abolish the federal government they would just do it.

every state constitution says that the people of the state have the right to alter of abolish their state government.....this is fact

therefore since the people have a right to alter or abolish this means they have the right to change it form of government...meaning they could create a monarchy, oligarchy, direct democracy, ANY form of government they choose.

however if a state does not remain in a republican form, it cannot be part of the union, because article 4 section 4 states governments must be a republican form.

there since the people exercised their right to create a non republican form of government that state has be expunged from the union


The principle of representation, although certainly the wisest and best, is not essential to the being of a republic, but to continue a member of the Union, it must be preserved, and therefore the guarantee must be so construed. It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.


The states, then, may wholly withdraw from the Union, but while they continue, they must retain the character of representative republics........

to have the federal government dictate to a state and tell them they cannot create another form of government......would infringe on the people's right, and the federal government would be nullifying part of their state constitution....which i started in affect would be nullifying a part of all the states constitutions
 
Luftwaffe said:
Was there not a civil damn war over secession?

My brother is my brother until he's my goddamn enemy.
Click to expand...

You won't have another issue like abolition to rally behind, so good luck getting the American People to get behind starting a war that would inevitably spill over to their soil
 
Luftwaffe said:
Cut every last dime of federal subsidies heading anywhere near Texas. There is always that option.

Quid pro quo.

You become a jackass we become a jackass kind of scenario.
Click to expand...

Then you're helping us secede. And Texas doesn't need federal subsidies, we're a wealthy state
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
The military would come in and force the state of Texas to comply just like segregationists were forced to comply with federal rulings back in the 50s and 60s. I am not sure what kind of a fantasy world you are living in if you think that any state could just ignore the federal judiciary without consequence.
Click to expand...

This is a thought experiment.

How would that work, practically? You'd have the national guard come in to Texas and....then what? Who are they going to shoot? If Texas doesn't appoint any federal judges, any federal prosecutors, etc... How is a military presence going to resolve that?

Do you think the American People would get behind a military invasion of Texas, given the scenario that the people of Texas democratically and peacefully voted to withdraw from the USA?
 
Redress said:
It is entirely unthinkable any time in the foreseeable future. Just is not going to happen. A handful of loud nutters is not nearly enough to bring it about.
Click to expand...

But if they did it, Texas could act like a nutter magnet.
 
Juanita said:
Hell yeah, but take Oklahoma, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama and the rest of the red states with you! :mrgreen:
Click to expand...


how about most of middle america too

kansas, nebraska, wyoming, etc, etc, etc

we can have 2 countries

coastal america

inner america

it almost splits that way

almost all the west coast, and east coast are blue states

and almost all the red states are in the south and middle
 
ernst barkmann said:
if the people were going to alter something of the federal government they would via an amendment, if they were going to abolish the federal government they would just do it.

every state constitution says that the people of the state have the right to alter of abolish their state government.....this is fact

therefore since the people have a right to alter or abolish this means they have the right to change it form of government...meaning they could create a monarchy, oligarchy, direct democracy, ANY form of government they choose.

however if a state does not remain in a republican form, it cannot be part of the union, because article 4 section 4 states governments must be a republican form.

there since the people exercised their right to create a non republican form of government that state has be expunged from the union


The principle of representation, although certainly the wisest and best, is not essential to the being of a republic, but to continue a member of the Union, it must be preserved, and therefore the guarantee must be so construed. It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.


The states, then, may wholly withdraw from the Union, but while they continue, they must retain the character of representative republics........

to have the federal government dictate to a state and tell them they cannot create another form of government......would infringe on the people's right, and the federal government would be nullifying part of their state constitution....which i started in affect would be nullifying a part of all the states constitutions
Click to expand...

The Federal government isn't dictating anything. By virtue of their accepting the Constitution the states have voluntarily agreed to maintain a republican form of government. They have given away their right to form a non republican form of government as the price for admittance to the union.
 
Gaius46 said:
The Federal government isn't dictating anything. By virtue of their accepting the Constitution the states have voluntarily agreed to maintain a republican form of government. They have given away their right to form a non republican form of government as the price for admittance to the union.
Click to expand...

only maintain a republican form while part of the union.

they have not given away a right...first of all you cannot give away a right..second the us federal government, has verified by u.s. enabling laws, that state constitutions when the states entered the union, that there state constitutions...were not repugnant to the federal constitution and the principles of the DOI.......therefore no state constitution is outside of the law... on the right of the people to alter or abolish their government.
 
Last edited:
Peter Grimm said:
This is a thought experiment.

How would that work, practically? You'd have the national guard come in to Texas and....then what? Who are they going to shoot? If Texas doesn't appoint any federal judges, any federal prosecutors, etc... How is a military presence going to resolve that?

Do you think the American People would get behind a military invasion of Texas, given the scenario that the people of Texas democratically and peacefully voted to withdraw from the USA?
Click to expand...

Federal judges are appointed by the federal government. If the state of Texas refused to allow appointed federal judges to take the bench, the president would call in the national guard and they would prevent any law enforcement under the jurisdiction of the state of Texas from interfering with the judges. As to the American public, I would imagine at least 70% would support the federal governments actions in such a case.
 
Enabling Act



AN ACT to provide for the division of Dakota into two States and to enable the people of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington to form constitutions and State governments and to be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and to make donations of public lands to such States.

(Approved February 22, 1889.) [25 U.S. Statutes at Large, c 180 p 676.]

[President's proclamation declaring Washington a state: 26 St. at Large, Proclamations, p 10, Nov. 11, 1889.]

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the inhabitants of all that part of the area of the United States now constituting the Territories of Dakota, Montana, and Washington, as at present described, may become the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington, respectively, as hereinafter provided.




SEC. 4. That the delegates to the conventions elected as provided for in this act shall meet at the seat of government of each of said Territories, except the delegates elected in South Dakota, who shall meet at the city of Sioux Falls, on the fourth day of July, eighteen hundred and eighty-nine, and, after organization, shall declare, on behalf of the people of said proposed States, that they adopt the Constitution of the United States; whereupon the said conventions shall be, and are hereby, authorized to form constitutions and States governments for said proposed states, respectively. The constitutions shall be republican in form, and make no distinction in civil or political rights on account of race or color, except as to Indians not taxed, and not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence. And said conventions shall provide, by ordinances irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of said States:

First. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured and that no inhabitant of said States shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship


State History Enabling Act
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Federal judges are appointed by the federal government. If the state of Texas refused to allow appointed federal judges to take the bench, the president would call in the national guard and they would prevent any law enforcement under the jurisdiction of the state of Texas from interfering with the judges. As to the American public, I would imagine at least 70% would support the federal governments actions in such a case.
Click to expand...
https://www.americanprogress.org/is.../2014/04/02/86910/texas-where-are-the-judges/
 
ernst barkmann said:
that is a court decision..

not what founders stated and what was taught to americans before the civil war...which is what i am dealing with....the federal government is currently engaged in powers it was never delegated in the constitution, like regulation of comerce inside of states, which the court granted to them in 1942.

it is the court, which has caused a great corruption of our constitution
Click to expand...
With all respect then Ernst, it seems what you're saying is you do not want to abide by the Court or rule of law, which leaves the following options (to my non-lawyer mind):

- Abide by the Court
- Legally challenge the ruling (through a lower court case leading back to the Supreme Court)
- Change the law (Constitutional Amendment, in this case)
- Civil Disobedience
- Armed Revolution

At one point, we've done them all in this land.

So what's your next move, and how do you plan to get there?
 
chomsky said:
with all respect then ernst, it seems what you're saying is you do not want to abide by the court or rule of law, which leaves the following options (to my non-lawyer mind):

- abide by the court
- legally challenge the ruling (through a lower court case leading back to the supreme court)
- change the law (constitutional amendment, in this case)
- civil disobedience
- armed revolution

at one point, we've done them all in this land.

So what's your next move, and how do you plan to get there?
Click to expand...

what i am saying is this....i gave the founders words, and what was taught, and it is not what the court is saying.

Now when it comes to the constitution, who is closer to it ...the court or the founders?

iam not advocating anything like seccesion...what i advocate for is .....rights.......which is always the center of my arugment.
 
I support the right for Texans to secede, they can all just walk south into the Gulf of Mexico. The land, however, and most things on it belong to the United States, they are not free to take it with them. Their personal belongings are theirs. The land, the infrastructure, etc. are not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom