• 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
war which also saved it from being spilt apart

Yes indeed, so you feel that the right of self-determination was OK in 1776, but that since 1787-89 this right should no longer apply.
 
Not really that stupid of an idea, Texas has a balanced budget, and just about every natural resource a nation could be blessed with.

I can see Teaparty types supporting this, but then I don't imagine they'd peacefully and democratically vote to assume their portion of the national debt. Plus they'd have to find jobs for all of those federal workers and come up with their own postal service, national defense, etc. It's a dumb idea and would make more sense for Texas to rejoin Mexico. It's practically a Mexican state already anyway. ;)
 
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?



Once you are in.....there is no getting out. KnowWhatImean! :2razz:

th




All kidding aside.....I believe that the good people of the State of Texas or any other state. Has the Right to self determination.
 
I support a constitutional amendment to establish procedures for peaceful secession.

And until such an amendment is enacted, there exists no procedure by which any state may ever leave the Union for any reason whatsoever.
 
I support a constitutional amendment to establish procedures for peaceful secession.

And until such an amendment is enacted, there exists no procedure by which any state may ever leave the Union for any reason whatsoever.


the constitution does not work that way......all powers which are delegated to the federal government are in the constitution, all powers which exist for the states are not in the constitution.

this makes federal powers few and defined, while states powers are numerous and indefinite.

federalist 45- The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

secession would be a state power

James Iredell, Proposed Amendment, North Carolina Ratifying Convention

1 Aug. 1788Elliot 4:249
1. Each state in the Union shall respectively retain every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Constitution delegated to the Congress of the United States, or to the departments of the general government; nor shall the said Congress, nor any department of the said government, exercise any act of authority over any individual in any of the said states, but such as can be justified under some power particularly given in this Constitution; but the said Constitution shall be considered at all times a solemn instrument, defining the extent of their authority, and the limits of which they cannot rightfully in any instance exceed.
 
Last edited:
the people of the southern states chose to secede from the union, all states except tenn..by holding state conventions, while tenn. held a state referendum of the people.
They did so by ignoring the law of the land and therefor the will of the people. And its called State secession, it is a dictatorial collectivist action which ignores all and any individual rights. And as such leaves zero recourse for those citizens in disagreement with the collective that wanted secession. The State government becomes a dictatorship from the onset of secession. Counties, municipalities, private entities, and foremost the individual would be powerless to stop any State legislation of any type. The only actual thing left to the individual would be to bear arms. But that would be difficult in the Marshall law like situation that the State would need to enforce at the onset of secession.
 
In a republic, the state is the people, entrusted to represent their will. Furthermore, if you believe polls, that extreme minority is about 25% of the state. Thats about 6 million people, which is twice the population of all the original 13 colonies combined.

That is ignorant, the State is not the people, the State only represents the people. And no I dont believe your made up poll.
 
I suspect that Mexican Cartels would take advantage of a border State that seceded. That is if we ignored the fact that no State can secede. But if one did somehow, it would lose overnight a huge military protection. It would take years to prepare for such a change to a States government to work. But without the US Constitution in play within its borders and the ideology of those supporting secession, I wouldnt be surprised to see lots of corruption. There would be a immediate need for monies to be generated.

You know what?

That is an excellent point. Namely, that if Texas were to be allowed to secede, and if it were to secede, the cartels would plunge the state into a war zone.

The states that didn't secede wouldn't have to fire a shot. Texas would self-destruct within years, maybe months.
 
They did so by ignoring the law of the land and therefor the will of the people. And its called State secession, it is a dictatorial collectivist action which ignores all and any individual rights. And as such leaves zero recourse for those citizens in disagreement with the collective that wanted secession. The State government becomes a dictatorship from the onset of secession. Counties, municipalities, private entities, and foremost the individual would be powerless to stop any State legislation of any type. The only actual thing left to the individual would be to bear arms. But that would be difficult in the Marshall law like situation that the State would need to enforce at the onset of secession.

since the people of the state choose to leave how are they ignoring the will of the people.

the people of 1 state do not bow to the will of the people of another state.

Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.

wrong......nothing can be dictatorial on secession.... if the people hold a convention, or a vote is put to the people
 
You know what?

That is an excellent point. Namely, that if Texas were to be allowed to secede, and if it were to secede, the cartels would plunge the state into a war zone.

The states that didn't secede wouldn't have to fire a shot. Texas would self-destruct within years, maybe months.

speculation
 
oh, you cite a constitutional amendment

LOLOLOLOL, that's a court decision, not a constitutional amendment!! Geez, dude, if you're going to try to play games with me, at least get your terminology right. Then maybe someday, you can upgrade to getting all the facts right!

and iam to old to me your son.

Ah yes, the obligatory hideous grammar and spelling. Reminds me of this:

lfmtube
 
Last edited:
LOLOLOLOL, that's a court decision, not a constitutional amendment!! Geez, dude, if you're going to try to play games with me, at least get your terminology right. Then maybe someday, you can upgrade to getting all the facts right!
guy... iam talking about your first post.:doh

I support a constitutional amendment to establish procedures for peaceful secession.

And until such an amendment is enacted, there exists no procedure by which any state may ever leave the Union for any reason whatsoever.
 
guy... iam talking about your first post.:doh

The "I don't know how to use the quote button properly" defense? Oh man, let's see...so far, you have:

-Failed to discern the difference between a constitutional amendment and a Supreme Court decision, a distinction I learned in the seventh grade; (EDIT: OK so now you're backtracking and failing to discern between a hypothetical amendment and an existing amendment. OK now we're down to elementary grade level skills.)
-Failed to use basic spelling and grammar that a fourth grader would be expected to know;
-Failed to figure out which post you're actually responding to.

All of that in just three posts! Keep it up, man, you're on a roll! :thumbs:
 
The "I don't know how to use the quote button properly" defense? Oh man, let's see...so far, you have:

-Failed to discern the difference between a constitutional amendment and a Supreme Court decision, a distinction I learned in the seventh grade;
-Failed to use basic spelling and grammar that a fourth grader would be expected to know;
-Failed to figure out which post you're actually responding to.

All of that in just three posts! Keep it up, man, you're on a roll! :thumbs:

:doh..you are an embarrassment...and you fall in the jet57 class
 
Last edited:
since the people of the state choose to leave how are they ignoring the will of the people.

the people of 1 state do not bow to the will of the people of another state.

Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.

wrong......nothing can be dictatorial on secession.... if the people hold a convention, or a vote is put to the people

SO I guess you are ok with people bowing to other people within the State.
 
SO I guess you are ok with people bowing to other people within the State.

if the state takes a vote, then all of the people have the right to vote in the way they desire...no one is being denied..their voice is being heard.

if a convention is held, the people vote for a person they wish to represent them at the convention ..so the people are being represented by the person of their choice their voice is being heard.

when the constitution was ratified it was by convention..the people were represented.
 
if the state takes a vote, then all of the people have the right to vote in the way they desire...no one is being denied..their voice is being heard.

if a convention is held, the people vote for a person they wish to represent them at the convention ..so the people are being represented by the person of their choice their voice is being heard.

when the constitution was ratified it was by convention..the people were represented.

So then if there is a convention (or a vote) that decides that we are all slaves then you are good with that?
 
So then if there is a convention (or a vote) that decides that we are all slaves then you are good with that?

sorry, people have a right to alter or abolish their government....there is no right to own another person.



those that say rights are created by man
..

if that were true then the people could hold a convention and create the right to own other people.


but man does not create his own rights, and cannot create such a a thing.
 
Last edited:
sorry, people have a right to alter or abolish their government....there is no right to own another person.



those that say rights are created by man
..

if that were true then the people could hold a convention and create the right to own other people.


but man does not create his own rights, and cannot create such a a thing.

So who does create rights in the USA? Are there mythical gods in the sky dispensing rights like so much Halloween candy to costumed toddlers in October?
 
So who does create rights in the USA? Are there mythical gods in the sky dispensing rights like so much Halloween candy to costumed toddlers in October?

rights are recognized by the constitution, those which are not recognized in it fall under the 9th amendment and are recognized by the USSC which is not a law making body, and is not electable by the people.

Unwritten Law

Unwritten rules, principles, and norms that have the effect and force of law though they have not been formally enacted by the government.

Most laws in America are written. The U.S. Code, the Code of Federal Regulations, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are three examples of written laws that are frequently cited in federal court. Each state has a similar body of written laws. By contrast, unwritten law consists of those customs, traditions, practices, usages, and other maxims of human conduct ---- that the government has recognized -------and enforced.

Unwritten law is most commonly found in primitive societies where illiteracy is prevalent. Because many residents in such societies cannot read or write, there is little point in publishing written laws to govern their conduct. Instead, societal disputes in primitive societies are resolved informally, through appeal to unwritten maxims of fairness or popularly accepted modes of behavior. Litigants present their claims orally in most primitive societies, and judges announce their decisions in the same fashion. The governing body in primitive societies typically enforces the useful traditions that are widely practiced in the community, while those practices that are novel or harmful fall into disuse or are discouraged.

Much of International Law is a form of primitive unwritten law. For centuries the Rules of War governing hostilities between belligerents consisted of a body of unwritten law. While some of these rules have been codified by international bodies such as the United Nations, many have not. For example, retaliatory reprisals against acts of Terrorism by a foreign government are still governed by unwritten customs in the international community. Each nation also retains discretion in formulating a response to the aggressive acts of a neighboring state.

In the United States, unwritten law takes on a variety of forms. In Constitutional Law the Supreme Court has ruled that the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to privacy even though the word privacy is not mentioned in the written text of the Constitution. In Commercial Law the Uniform Commercial Code permits merchants to resolve legal disputes by introducing evidence of unwritten customs, practices, and usages that others in the same trade generally follow. The entire body of Common Law, comprising cases decided by judges on matters relating to torts and contracts, among other things, is said to reflect unwritten standards that have evolved over time. In each case, however, once a court, legislature, or other government body formally adopts a standard, principle, or Maxim in writing, it ceases to be an unwritten law.

principles :.....as in the principles of the declaration of independence, which are recognized by u.s. federal law.

maxims of human conduct ............natural rights.

that the government has recognized
..........natural rights which are recognized by the constitution.

and enforced.........natural rights are enforced by man made laws, which are .........postive law/statutes.

unwritten law legal definition of unwritten law

____________________________________________________________________________________
Victory! Federal Court Recognizes Constitutional Rights of Americans on the No-Fly List

https://www.aclu.org/blog/victory-f...s-constitutional-rights-americans-no-fly-list[/QUOTE]
 
if Texas left the union, the union would be in a bad way also.

because Texas holds oil reserves, Texas holds [1] power grid of the [3] which other states depend on......so it would not be good for both sides.

I agree... which is part of why Texas is never leaving the Union. But it would be hilarious to send troops in to arrest the errant legislator or militiamen who thinks differently.
 
In American Constitutional Law, fundamental rights have special significance under the U.S. Constitution. Those rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution are recognized as "fundamental" by the U.S. Supreme Court. According to the Supreme Court, enumerated rights that are incorporated are so fundamental that any law restricting such a right must both serve a compelling state purpose and be narrowly tailored to that compelling purpose.

Supreme Court to Decide Whether States Must Recognize Same-Sex Marriage

Supreme Court to Decide Whether States Must Recognize Same-Sex Marriage - WSJ

U.S. SUPREME COURT MUST RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE RIGHTS OF SAME-SEX COUPLES, SAYS HUMANIST GROUP

U.S. Supreme Court Must Recognize Marriage Rights of Same-Sex Couples, Says Humanist Group

the Supreme Court also recognized that the right of the parents to delegate their authority to a teacher in order to instruct their children was protected within the liberty of the Fourteenth Amendment. 4
Decisions of the United States Supreme Court Upholding Parental Rights as "Fundamental"HSLDA | National Center Special Report[/QUOTE]
 
Back
Top Bottom