• 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!

White House denies Texas secession

Let em go. They can become their own Country. That means all Fed money stops, all military bases close. You want to leave the Country of Texas and travel, you got a passport. Mexico's invading you, sorry can't help. Can't drive across the border you don't have an international driver license.

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea. I'd require a visa before we let any of them into the United States, however.
 
It would be one long ass drive from Florida to California having to drive around Texas.

Gasoline prices would probably remain the same as oil is priced based on the global market. Texas has refineries and I suspect they would prosper in that arena. But their gains would be absorbed by the increase of other products required from other parts of the world and their associated costs.

Texas would again become a de facto Mexican state as many of the W.A.S.P. middle classes eventually migrate back to America.

But it would be nice to rid America of Texas altered reality influence. If that is at all possible. Sure, it's cute in a John Wayne sort of way but it's also detrimental to good policy and common sense decisions based on factual data. Emotional opinion and cultural belief has no place in mathmatical equation.

If none of that made sense, remember, I'm FROM Texas. LOL!
 
What happens if Texas still continues with secession? Will the rest of USA use force to keep it down?

Sounds like Britain-EU thing.

Texas won't continue. The people with actual power in Texas don't want this, and the ones that do are just ignorant ****s.
 
The Texas population is 25,674,681. Approximately 125,000 signed it, but many were not even Texas residents. I don't see what is newsworthy of the White House denying succession based on a online petition with signatures from 0.004% of the population, less if you don't count the out of state signatures. I don't think this succession movement is nearly as big as some make it out to be.
 
The more I think about it, the more I like the idea. I'd require a visa before we let any of them into the United States, however.

That would only make sense that they be treated like the foreign country they are.
 
The Texas population is 25,674,681. Approximately 125,000 signed it, but many were not even Texas residents. I don't see what is newsworthy of the White House denying succession based on a online petition with signatures from 0.004% of the population, less if you don't count the out of state signatures. I don't think this succession movement is nearly as big as some make it out to be.

The newsworthy part is his interpretation of the constitution. Hes now on record as saying no state can ever be free unless the federal govt says so.
 
The newsworthy part is his interpretation of the constitution. Hes now on record as saying no state can ever be free unless the federal govt says so.

I missed that part skimming through, that is definitely newsworthy.
 
We'll see what happens if a natural disaster hits Texas. Think they will say no thank you we don't need help from the government.

If they are independent, probably. They have refused federal aid for healthcare before. Florida declined aid to build a high speed rail. Some states have principles and dont think they federal govt should redistribute money to them.

Office of the Governor Rick Perry - [Press Release] Gov. Perry: Texas Will Not Expand Medicaid or Implement Health Benefit Exchange
 
I guess that means it'll never happen. The rest of the states are all too happy too mooch off of us while complaining that they don't like us.

I'm reminded of the quote from the move Trainspotting:
"Some hate the English. I don't. They're just wankers. We, on the other hand, are COLONIZED by wankers."

One of my top 5 favorite movies Alpaca..
 
Except that with certain foreign countries, we don't require visas. The UK, for example. However, these are countries that generally we have positive relationships with.
 
It's really very simple. If Perry has the balls, put it to a vote in the State. If people in Texas want to become their own Country they will vote for it. At that point they may have an argument for it.
 
It's really very simple. If Perry has the balls, put it to a vote in the State. If people in Texas want to become their own Country they will vote for it. At that point they may have an argument for it.

Im ok with that. No one really thought this petition was serious.
 
In Texas, if you wanna shoot ducks, you have to do it with a shotgun and can have only three rounds in the magazine.

Gun control!!! Oh noes!

But worry not...

If'n yew wanna hunt messkin's, you can use any rifle you got and have as many bullets in the magazine as you can stick in thar'.

Don't mess with Texas. Yeee-hawww!
 
If the founders didnt intend for a state to ever be allowed to leave till the end of time, why did they write:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
If they wanted states to have free exit, why did they write "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia."

And then, when the Constitution replaced the Articles they wrote: "...in Order to form a more perfect Union...?"

IF the Union was perpetual under the Articles,
AND IF the Constitution made it more perfect,
AND IF less than perpetual is NOT more perfect than perpetual,
THEN the Union must also/still be perpetual under the Constitution.
 
If they wanted states to have free exit, why did they write "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia."

And then, when the Constitution replaced the Articles they wrote: "...in Order to form a more perfect Union...?"

IF the Union was perpetual under the Articles,
AND IF the Constitution made it more perfect,
AND IF less than perpetual is NOT more perfect than perpetual,
THEN the Union must also/still be perpetual under the Constitution.

The second question is easier. More perfect means better than the Confederation. The problems with the Confederation are well known, and states being able to leave it wasnt one of them. In fact, the Articles were anything but perpetual, as the states left it for the Constitution, and the Confederation didnt last very long. Regardless, its moot. The Declaration was written before the Articles, and they cleary state unalienable rights. Which means you can not sign away your right to be free. Even beyond that, its common sense. If Texas were to simply declare independence, and the USA could not stop them, then what is the difference if the USA considers it legal or not? They are for all purposes, out. The law is meaningless unless people consent to follow it.
 
Why should we secede ? We'll refuse any of incompetents mandated job killing policies,regulations and laws, incentivize growth in our own economy and highlight the lefts failure by example.
 
The second question is easier. More perfect means better than the Confederation. The problems with the Confederation are well known, and states being able to leave it wasnt one of them.
But states weren't able to leave the Union....it was explicitly a perpetual Union.

In fact, the Articles were anything but perpetual, as the states left it for the Constitution, and the Confederation didnt last very long.
Read it again...it was never stated that the Articles or even the Confederation (form of government) was perpetual, but the Union of the states was a perpetual union..and that's irrespective of the exact form of government.

Regardless, its moot. The Declaration was written before the Articles, and they cleary state unalienable rights.[/quote]
For individuals, not for government entities. "Men," not "States" were endowed with unalienable rights.

Which means you can not sign away your right to be free.
True...any individual is free to leave their state or country in pursuit of their freedom/happiness (unlike the Soviet Union back in the day).

Even beyond that, its common sense. If Texas were to simply declare independence, and the USA could not stop them, then what is the difference if the USA considers it legal or not? They are for all purposes, out. The law is meaningless unless people consent to follow it.
So, if say Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississipi, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas declared independence they would be out for all purposes and that's it? Wasn't that tried already?

The Supreme Court ruled in Texas v White (1869)
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.
And there's a lot of Federal land in Texas, and a lot of US military that is in the interest of the US to protect. In a voluntary seperation, deals could be made, but that's just not possible in a unilateral move or secession.
 
But states weren't able to leave the Union....it was explicitly a perpetual Union.

Read it again...it was never stated that the Articles or even the Confederation (form of government) was perpetual, but the Union of the states was a perpetual union..and that's irrespective of the exact form of government.

For individuals, not for government entities. "Men," not "States" were endowed with unalienable rights.


True...any individual is free to leave their state or country in pursuit of their freedom/happiness (unlike the Soviet Union back in the day).

So, if say Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississipi, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas declared independence they would be out for all purposes and that's it? Wasn't that tried already?

The Supreme Court ruled in Texas v White (1869)
And there's a lot of Federal land in Texas, and a lot of US military that is in the interest of the US to protect. In a voluntary seperation, deals could be made, but that's just not possible in a unilateral move or secession.

The supreme court is irrelevant. Their authority comes from a govt which has no power over a independent country.
 
The supreme court is irrelevant. Their authority comes from a govt which has no power over a independent country.

But it's important in the determination as to whether or not a State in rebellion IS an independent country. A huge point of Texas v White was the question as to whether or not Texas was independent of the United States from 1861-1865.
If, therefore, it is true that the State of Texas was not at he time of filing this bill, or is not now, one of the United States, we have no jurisdiction of this suit, and it is our duty to dismiss it.
And their conclusion was
Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.

Our conclusion therefore is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred. And this conclusion, in our judgment, is not in conflict with any act or declaration of any department of the National government, but entirely in accordance with the whole series of such acts and declarations since the first outbreak of the rebellion.
In other words, a State simply declaring itself independent does not make it independent (as a matter of law).
 
If the constitution is so old and outdated as liberals claim it is what is holding Texas except the threat of retribution?
 
Of course the Chief won't let the Indians get away, or in this case, the Massa his slaves.
 
If the constitution is so old and outdated as liberals claim it is what is holding Texas except the threat of retribution?

Becuase the MAJORITY of Texans don't want to leave the U.S.
 
If the constitution is so old and outdated as liberals claim it is what is holding Texas except the threat of retribution?


If you or other Texans don't like the U.S., feel free to leave anytime you want to on a plane to another country.
 
Back
Top Bottom