• 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
If Texas wanted to leave the Union I would be more sympathetic if they were willing to take the other 49 states with them.



Is that supposed to make some kind of sense?
 
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



Nah, I'd rather split it North and South. Let the residents of Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming and their like pack their bags and move to their new Country.
 
state governments put the question to the people of the southern states and they decided...by state convention and referendum.

So what happens if the federal government doesn't allow Texas to secede? If someone can vote themselves out of the US, can other people simply vote themselves in?
 
Yes I would support their right to secede assuming they will be responsible for their own defense,and we won't have to give them any forign or military aid.

:lol: I can see Mexico taking back what was once theirs if that happens.
 
So what happens if the federal government doesn't allow Texas to secede? If someone can vote themselves out of the US, can other people simply vote themselves in?

There is a difference between people asserting their right to self-determination and deciding to stand on their own, something which should be their decision, and people wanting to join a group and thus share in the benefits and responsibilities of that group, which obviously requires the consent of the group.
 
So many of you talk about the law. The law is totally irrelevant here.

So if 100% of Texans voted to leave America, some of you would be against it because it is against the law? That is ridiculous. The will of the vast majority has to take preference over the law.

If all you care about is the law, then I suppose you support a law that cuts off people's hands for shoplifting...assuming it is already on the books? Or do you just support laws you like?

The law is not there to restrict the will of the people. And if it is - then it is a bad law and should be ignored. And if the will of the vast majority of ANY region is to leave America, they should be allowed to do it. The only stipulation would be that they take their share of the national debt on a per capita basis. Otherwise, Bon voyage.

Once you start forcing people to stay in a country against their will, then you are the Soviet Union on that score.

As far as I am concerned, if 50%+1 Texans want to leave America and agree to take their share of the national debt with them...they should be allowed to leave; and I don't even begin to care if the Constitution says they can't.
 
We have the legal right to split in to 5 states.. That's 10 new senators from Texas. Would you be OK with 1/5th of the senators in the U.S. being from Texas?

They would kick us out before they ever allowed that to finalize

No you don't. Read article IV section 3 again. Congress has the authority to approve the making of a new state from parts of other states, assuming those states agree. NO ONE, including Congress has the right to subdivide a single state into multiple states. In short the resolution you point to is unconstitutional.
 
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.

And none of that implies in any way shape or form than if the people of NY a abolished theiir government they could legally enact a non republican form of government. Saying the people can abolish their government does not imply that they are unconstrained as to the form of a new government.
 
And they can, they can get up, pack their stuff and leave the United States. They are welcome to live anywhere else they want.

A people should have claim to the land they live and work.
 
A people should have claim to the land they live and work.

Says who? I have claim to the land where I live and work only so long as I continue to pay for it and follow the applicable laws. It isn't mine forever magically.
 
Is that supposed to make some kind of sense?
It's irony. All 50 states turn and look at Washington DC and say "yeah, we're not going to revolt per-se, we're just leaving the Union".
 
Says who? I have claim to the land where I live and work only so long as I continue to pay for it and follow the applicable laws. It isn't mine forever magically.

Says me. It is a value judgment. An opinion. Hence my use of the word "should" in my sentence.
 
So what happens if the federal government doesn't allow Texas to secede? If someone can vote themselves out of the US, can other people simply vote themselves in?

this would only be an assumption.....

the u.s. government would have to come in and take over the state by marshal law, and subdue the people, and maybe even kill, which would not be good go them because others all different states would rally against the government, and they would have to act against all states, this would bring in a already small tired military, which part of the military is not going to obey the federal government.
 
this would only be an assumption.....

the u.s. government would have to come in and take over the state by marshal law, and subdue the people, and maybe even kill, which would not be good go them because others all different states would rally against the government, and they would have to act against all states, this would bring in a already small tired military, which part of the military is not going to obey the federal government.

The will of the people of Texas vs the will of the Federal government - no contest. But as I stated before. The U.S. government could make life miserable on any state by imposing sanctions. And there's no state, including Texas that has all of the necessary resources to be an independent sovereign state/nation.
 
And none of that implies in any way shape or form than if the people of NY a abolished theiir government they could legally enact a non republican form of government. Saying the people can abolish their government does not imply that they are unconstrained as to the form of a new government.

since the people have a right to alter or abolish their state government they have.......then they have a right to create any form of government they choose....this is a founding principle the u.s. government has recognized

if that government is not a republican form created by the people, then have formed something which is not within constitutional guarantee, and therefore that state cannot be part of the union...it has to be expunged.
 
Last edited:
The will of the people of Texas vs the will of the Federal government - no contest. But as I stated before. The U.S. government could make life miserable on any state by imposing sanctions. And there's no state, including Texas that has all of the necessary resources to be an independent sovereign state/nation.

texas has 1 power grid to itself....that would be lost to the u.s.

Texas has access to the water....its not landlocked and can conduct trade

texas has resources ..oil..and part the u.s. strategic oil reserves of america...
 
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?

It would be the final nail in the coffin for the Republican party on a national level. There is no chance of winning a Presidential election if they don't have Texas.
 
texas has 1 power grid to itself....that would be lost to the u.s.

Texas has access to the water....its not landlocked and can conduct trade

texas has resources ..oil..and part the u.s. strategic oil reserves of america...

Not near enough...
 
I also support the right of Austin to secede from the rest of Texas.
 
really?.. Texas has more resources than most other recognized countries.

there are a few states that don't have the necessary resources for independence.. .but to argue Texas is one of them is extremely odd

It doesn't matter. The complexities of our state's infrastructure depends on its Federal Government ties.
 
there are many countries around the world who have far less the capacity of Texas, and they are independent nations.

Yes, like which countries SPECIFICALLY? Let's compare their current state of sovereignty with Texas'.
 
Back
Top Bottom