• 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
SEE POST # 820. Its all there for you and you are ignoring it because it destroys you utterly and completely.

I just provided you in 820 many examples including the right to vote for African Americans, women, 18, 19 and 20 year olds, and Sixth Amendment rights.

Is it fair to assume you have a copy of the Constitution and can read those sections?

Go back and read.

Go back and learn.

Go back and stop pretending that you are clever looking for your next insult.

sorry man " go look it up" is not acceptable evidence for your claim.

please provide proof of your claim.... provide the text of the US Constitution that applies directly to the people and is not a limitation of govt.
 
secession is not inherently treason nor does it inherently mean war...that's merely your opinion and it ignores seceding by means other than how it was attempted in the past.

those whom would secede would only take that part of the nation that they already exercise an amount of sovereignty over....and I did not say their plans are illegal, I said the argument against secession has the legal high ground.. that high ground consists solely of a single SCOTUS decision.
Purposely trying to break up the union is indeed treason.

If the government is so corrupted the US Constitution has lost its power as the law of the land then it wouldnt be seceding. And if the goal at that point is not to reinstate the US government then it is something that I would fight against.


who did i lump you in with ?
Does the word "compatriots" ring a bell? You seem to think that anyone who makes an argument against your claim is doing so as a group. I am a individualist I belong to no group so to me you just seem paranoid. Everyone isnt ganging up on you, you argument just sucks.
 
Purposely trying to break up the union is indeed treason.
no, it's not.
the US Constitution defines Treason as "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."... so yeah.. you're wrong... no doubt about it.

If the government is so corrupted the US Constitution has lost its power as the law of the land then it wouldnt be seceding. And if the goal at that point is not to reinstate the US government then it is something that I would fight against.
so you would make war on those whom decided to secede?.. all based on your misunderstanding of the word treason?
that's not very nice.


Does the word "compatriots" ring a bell? You seem to think that anyone who makes an argument against your claim is doing so as a group. I am a individualist I belong to no group so to me you just seem paranoid. Everyone isn't ganging up on you, you argument just sucks.
I didn't say anyone was ganging up on me.. nor was any group named for you to be lumped in with <shrug>.... go easy on the projection, man

I don't doubt you think my argument sucks... that comes as no surprise.
 
will you please provide proof of what you say, ..instead of just telling me this.

i have asked you several times already where rights are granted by government, and you have refuse to show me.

any legal rights you have
 
since rights are only recognized by the constitution, and not granted by government, congress has no power over them.

you don't have power over what you don't control.

the constitution is federalism, the separation of powers between state governments and the federal government with the federal government having few powers, and the bill of rights are restrictions on the federal government to make no laws concerning the recognized rights


that's the same thing
 
no, it's not.
the US Constitution defines Treason as "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."... so yeah.. you're wrong... no doubt about it.

so you would make war on those whom decided to secede?.. all based on your misunderstanding of the word treason?
that's not very nice.


So then if there is enough legal immigrates, that move into a section of the USA and want to secede you are fine with that? Say a bunch of Mexican nationals move to Texas gain US citizenship legally and want Texas to secede that isnt treason or making war on the USA? How about a bunch of Muslim Americans want to take a section of any State and secede it from the union?

According to you it is the peoples right to self determine their own government. It doesnt matter their reasoning for seceding as long as they get to enjoy their rights. Isnt that what you have been saying? Dont you see a problem with having a country where it can Balkanize at will without the Federal Government having any power to stop such activity?

really the whole self-determination argument that you have been asserting turns out to be the result of a dictatorship by the majority or legislation. it sounds a lot like to me that you would accept anything that people wanted to do because it is their right.
 
yes making noises is natural

Using spoken words to intimidate, threaten or harm in anyway is not natural. The freedom of speech that we all enjoy and want doesnt come without some limits. One cannot go into a crowded theater and yell fire without breaking a law and the Constitutional right to freedom of speech isnt a valid defense.
 
Using spoken words to intimidate, threaten or harm in anyway is not natural. The freedom of speech that we all enjoy and want doesnt come without some limits. One cannot go into a crowded theater and yell fire without breaking a law and the Constitutional right to freedom of speech isnt a valid defense.

um if threats are not natural then prayer is not natural im ok with that
 
sorry man " go look it up" is not acceptable evidence for your claim.

please provide proof of your claim.... provide the text of the US Constitution that applies directly to the people and is not a limitation of govt.

READ THE CONSTITUTION certainly is. AndI did provide many examples from it including the text you requested. I provided the exact text of the Sixth Amendment.
 
yes making noises is natural

Far too many people here confuse a mere ability due to biology of a species as a RIGHT - which it is not. Yes, speaking is a natural ability and so is movement and dealing with others and procreating and lots of other things. Those are ABILITIES that a person has due to the biology of the species. They are NOT rights.
 
Yes I did. And you FAILED TO ANSWER IT. Failed completely and utterly and completely. Here it is again: The judicial branch - the US Supreme Court - has the power to interpret the Constitution and tell us what it means stepping in disputes about the document and its meaning. Can you point to the Supreme Court decision which states that the Constitution does not apply to citizen?

Now lets see you again fail to answer it.

you did not even know what he was saying.........again lets look at your error...


he stated this
federal law applies to the people, the US Constitution does not.

so he talking about LAW..acts passed by congress, and saying their are no constitutional powers which apply to citizens..........and that is 100% correct.

citizens cannot violate constitutional law......only federal law can they violate.

Thrilla's statement had nothing to do with the judicial branch of government, but he was talking about the legislative branch.
 
you did not even know what he was saying.........again lets look at your error...


he stated this

so he talking about LAW..acts passed by congress, and saying their are no constitutional powers which apply to citizens..........and that is 100% correct.

citizens cannot violate constitutional law......only federal law can they violate.

Thrilla's statement had nothing to do with the judicial branch of government, but he was talking about the legislative branch.

Not one thing you just said defending Thrilla supports the idea that powers contained in the Constitution do not apply to citizens. I already provided real life examples where they do.

My statement and question about the judicial branch was directed to you anybody else who takes the absurd position that the Constitution does not apply to citizens. Again - Can you cite one single Supreme Court decision which says this over the last 225 years?
 
a legal right...is a "privilege" under constitutional law.

the constitution has natural rights and privileges, and nothing else

Except the Constitution says you are wrong. It refers to THE RIGHT TO VOTE or a variation on that language at least five different times in five different places. Nothing about the privilege of voting - but the RIGHT TO VOTE.
 
Not one thing you just said defending Thrilla supports the idea that powers contained in the Constitution do not apply to citizens. I already provided real life examples where they do.

My statement and question about the judicial branch was directed to you anybody else who takes the absurd position that the Constitution does not apply to citizens. Again - Can you cite one single Supreme Court decision which says this over the last 225 years?

as he stated and i will now......show me any article /section/clause of the constitution that applies to the people and that they can violate.

all i ask is you give me the article/ section/ and clause numbers.
 
Except the Constitution says you are wrong. It refers to THE RIGHT TO VOTE or a variation on that language at least five different times in five different places. Nothing about the privilege of voting - but the RIGHT TO VOTE.

are you saying the constitution created the right to vote?
 
as he stated and i will now......show me any article /section/clause of the constitution that applies to the people and that they can violate.

all i ask is you give me the article/ section/ and clause numbers.

Where did this nonsense about AND THEY CAN VIOLATE come from?
 
are you saying the constitution created the right to vote?

Various Constitutional Amendments effectively created the right to vote for certain groups of Americans including African Americans, females and persons from age 18 to 20 years old.
 
Where did this nonsense about AND THEY CAN VIOLATE come from?

here is what i said...in post 675# and post 682

the constitutional law does not apply to Citizens......federal law does.

constitutional law does not apply to Citizens....only federal law does....please show in constitutional law, where it can be used on a Citizen.



here is YOUR reply to me!

POST #702

The judicial branch - the US Supreme Court - has the power to interpret the Constitution and tell us what it means stepping in disputes about the document and its meaning. Can you point to the Supreme Court decision which states that the Constitution does not apply to citizen?


HERE is Thrilla's reply to your post of #702


did you seriously just ask this question?..hollyyyyyyy ****.... wow.

the entire document.. all of it.. every single word of it.... pertains to government and government only.

he's entirely correct... federal law applies to the people, the US Constitution does not.


i stated plainly, that constitutional law does not apply to people, only federal law does, and Thrilla stated i was correct...and he and i are correct...."Citizens cannot violate constitutional law".....they can only violate federal law.

Citizens are subject to the decisions of the federal courts, but if a citizen is a defendant in court........he has violated federal LAW........."NO CITIZEN .....VIOLATES CONSTITUTIONAL LAW"
 
i stated plainly, that constitutional law does not apply to people, only federal law does, and Thrilla stated i was correct...and he and i are correct...."Citizens cannot violate constitutional law".....they can only violate federal law.

Citizens are subject to the decisions of the federal courts, but if a citizen is a defendant in court........he has violated federal LAW........."NO CITIZEN .....VIOLATES CONSTITUTIONAL LAW"

Why are you restricting the application and effect of the Constitution to simple violations of what it says?

here was the statement from Thrilla that you also defended

federal law applies to the people, the US Constitution does not.

Clearly that is incorrect. The Constitution very very much applies to the people and I gave many examples of that.

In addition you have asked many times what rights the Constitution provides people and I provided proof on that also via the Sixth Amendment complete with its language.

another statement from Thrilla that you are on the side with

the entire document.. all of it.. every single word of it.... pertains to government and government only.

I clearly showed that is incorrect also and provided many examples where it applies perfectly to citizens.
 
Last edited:
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?

Well, that would solve America's border problem, wouldn't it. America could pull it's resources like border patrol out, and make Texans or Texicans responsible.
But what would Texas do about federal funding to close their budget gaps? Raise their own tax dollars?

Texas Used Stimulus to Cover 97% of Its Deficit - The Atlantic
 
Various Constitutional Amendments effectively created the right to vote for certain groups of Americans including African Americans, females and persons from age 18 to 20 years old.




AMENDMENT XV
Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--

Section 2.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

THE 15TH AMENDMENT STATES THAT CONGRESS IS GRANTED THE POWER TO WRITE FEDERAL LEGISLATION, TO PROHIBIT THE ABRIDGEMENT OF VOTING BY THE U.S. OR ANY STATE ON ACCOUNT OF A PERSON'S RACE, HIS COLOR, OR IF HE WAS A FORMER SLAVE

SO THE AMENDMENT PREVENTS GOVERNMENTS FROM DENYING PEOPLE A VOTE....ON ACCOUNT OF THE REASON WHICH ARE LISTED.........IT DOES NOT GRANT A VOTE!



AMENDMENT XIX
Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

THE 19TH AMENDMENT STATES THAT CONGRESS IS GRANTED THE POWER TO WRITE FEDERAL LEGISLATION, TO PROHIBIT THE ABRIDGEMENT OF VOTING BY THE U.S. OR ANY STATE ON ACCOUNT OF A PERSON'S SEX.

SO THE AMENDMENT PREVENTS GOVERNMENTS FROM DENYING PEOPLE A VOTE....ON ACCOUNT OF THE REASON WHICH ARE LISTED.........IT DOES NOT GRANT A VOTE!



AMENDMENT XXVI
Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified July 1, 1971.

Note: Amendment 14, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

THE 26TH AMENDMENT STATES THAT CONGRESS IS GRANTED THE POWER TO WRITE FEDERAL LEGISLATION, TO PROHIBIT THE ABRIDGEMENT OF VOTING BY THE U.S. OR ANY STATE ON ACCOUNT OF A PERSON'S AGE.

SO THE AMENDMENT PREVENTS GOVERNMENTS FROM DENYING PEOPLE A VOTE....ON ACCOUNT OF THE REASON WHICH ARE LISTED.........IT DOES NOT GRANT A VOTE!
 
Last edited:
Why are you restricting the application and effect of the Constitution to simple violations of what it says?

people adhere to federal courts decisions...but that is not the constitution, just like federal law is not the constitution....people cannot in any way violate constitutional law....its impossible.

because constitutional law apples to government only.



here was the statement from Thrilla that you also defended

he is restating what i have said......constitutional law does not apply to the people...

example:...here is what the constitution says on counterfeiting.

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

can the federal government use this clause of the constitution to prosecute people?..............NO!

the federal government, is granted the power to create federal law for the crime of counterfeiting, and federal law is used on people

it would be impossible to use the clause of the constitution on a Citizen....because the clause does not define what counterfeiting is.


Clearly that is incorrect. The Constitution very very much applies to the people and I gave many examples of that.

In addition you have asked many times what rights the Constitution provides people and I provided proof on that also via the Sixth Amendment complete with its language.

the 6th amendment is a restriction on the federal government.....saying the government CANNOT keep people from getting a public speedy trial.

it does not grant any right.



another statement from Thrilla that you are on the side with

I clearly showed that is incorrect also and provided many examples where it applies perfectly to citizens.

again this is correct..the constitution is about the separations of powers, and what powers will be delegated to the federal government.....again the constitution is about powers.

the body of the constitution of 1788...delegates powers to the federal government, and creates the structure of the federal government.

the bill of rights lays restrictions on the federal government, not to makes laws which infringe on recognized rights of the people.

further amendments grant congress powers to write legislation...pertaining to voting/privileges/rights among other things.

again, the law of the constitution cannot be used on a Citizen of the u.s.......federal law is used on Citizens.
 
Last edited:
Interesting result in the poll, which shows the standard partisan lines in this country. 50% support freedom, 50% dont.
 
Back
Top Bottom