• 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!

Texas secession?

Texas secession?

  • Anytime they want

    Votes: 47 54.7%

  • Bad times only

    Votes: 1 1.2%

  • No way

    Votes: 35 40.7%

  • I don't know

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 3 3.5%
  • Total voters
    86
I don't know that.

Quantrill
 
RadicalModerate said:
Well, duh. There is no situation in which any of your rights can't be curtailed or removed completely. Your free speech in curtailed, your right to vote can be removed and your right to life can be taken away. What makes you think there would be no limited of self-determination?
Click to expand...

then you answer to the initial question I posed of self determination is " no, they should not be allowed to self determine".. and not " yes , of course.....<snip>"
 
Thrilla said:
no,this is incorrect.... by utilizing the constitutional principle of consent of the many states, with successful ratification in the legislature, a succession can be successfully pulled off.
Click to expand...

You have a legal contradiction then. The unilateral law of the land says the federal government is the ultimate law of the land, it sets the minimum standard. But if you include the right to unilateral secession, then the federal law isn't really the ultimate authority.
 
Thrilla said:
then you answer to the initial question I posed of self determination is " no, they should not be allowed to self determine".. and not " yes , of course.....<snip>"
Click to expand...

They have a right to self-determination after they conform to the minimum standard. Welcome to America, dude.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060511052 said:
Germany has nothing to do with the Texas or the US.

Who is we? Do you speak for the government? Go ahead and confiscate the currency as you put it; but the more likely scenario is to exchange it for something like gold. Yes, that would probably be sufficient for the people of Texas. Can't occupy Texas roads if Texas secedes unless you want a war. I really doubt the people of the US would stand for that. The whole country would go up in flames, with the exception of maybe Kalifornia, and some other "suck the life out of their own economy, we need federal aid because we are too dumb to manage our own budget" states.

But Texas seceding from the union seems like an interesting prospect. I think the Washington elite and their lackeys would find out that states rights really are important to most people, with the noted exceptions above.

Republic of Texas - David Crockett





Davey Crockett continues to be an inspiration to Texans for the reasons you just read. Many would emulate his actions to preserve their way of life if necessary.
Click to expand...
giving your life so others can live free sounds noble, but giving your life so others can live well sounds stupid. Yet many of our political leaders laud our troops for the sacrifices they make while quietly undermining the veterans chances of ever living well.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060511052 said:
Germany has nothing to do with the Texas or the US.

Who is we? Do you speak for the government? Go ahead and confiscate the currency as you put it; but the more likely scenario is to exchange it for something like gold. Yes, that would probably be sufficient for the people of Texas. Can't occupy Texas roads if Texas secedes unless you want a war. I really doubt the people of the US would stand for that. The whole country would go up in flames, with the exception of maybe Kalifornia, and some other "suck the life out of their own economy, we need federal aid because we are too dumb to manage our own budget" states.

But Texas seceding from the union seems like an interesting prospect. I think the Washington elite and their lackeys would find out that states rights really are important to most people, with the noted exceptions above.

Republic of Texas - David Crockett





Davey Crockett continues to be an inspiration to Texans for the reasons you just read. Many would emulate his actions to preserve their way of life if necessary.
Click to expand...


Go read a history book. The whole creation of the "Republic of Texas" was by Americans, with the support of the United States government, as a pretense for taking Texas from Mexico. It was a prelude to the Mexican War, and "manifest destiny" and so forth.

Basically, without the support of the United States, Texas would still be part of Mexico. Ole.
 
RadicalModerate said:
That's like saying nothing in Constitution addresses DUIs or child porn, therefore, both are legal.
Click to expand...

No, its like saying you stated that it was unconstitutional. Now you can't prove it was unconstitutional. But you don't want to admit it. So, I ask again. Was it unconstitutional prior to 1861 for a state to seced?

Quantrill
 
Matt Foley said:
Secession is not determined by the "rule of law", the Supreme Court, the Congress, the president, or whatever the hell Texas thinks it wants. Secession is determined by the Rule of Gun.
Click to expand...

succession can be determined by rule of law... it doesn't have to be determined by the gun.
 
RadicalModerate said:
You have a legal contradiction then. The unilateral law of the land says the federal government is the ultimate law of the land, it sets the minimum standard. But if you include the right to unilateral secession, then the federal law isn't really the ultimate authority.
Click to expand...

I said nothing of unilateral succession.
 
Thrilla said:
the manner in which succession was attempted is , and was, unconstitutional.

...but that's not the same thing as saying succession is unconstitutional.... it depends entirely up the method by which succession is attempted.
Click to expand...

Show where secession was uncontitutional.

Quantrill
 
Thrilla said:
no,this is incorrect.... by utilizing the constitutional principle of consent of the many states, with successful ratification in the legislature, a succession can be successfully pulled off.
Click to expand...

That only works in some cases. When did the independent nation of Arkansas consent to joining the United States? Never. When did the independent "Kingdom of Iowa" accede to the Constitution? Never.

If the Constitution can be broken at any time, then there's no basis for it. There's nothing to stop any state from nullifying any Federal law.

If Texas can secede from the United States, why can't certain counties of Texas secede from Texas and rejoin the Union for a couple of weeks? Then rejoin when it's convienient again.
 
rocket88 said:
Go read a history book. The whole creation of the "Republic of Texas" was by Americans, with the support of the United States government, as a pretense for taking Texas from Mexico. It was a prelude to the Mexican War, and "manifest destiny" and so forth.

Basically, without the support of the United States, Texas would still be part of Mexico. Ole.
Click to expand...

BS. Texas got its independence from Mexico first.

Quantrill
 
Quantrill said:
Then show where or who says it.

Quantrill
Click to expand...

Zzzzzzzz, this is why I brought up DUIs and child porn. There is no explicit statement made against either, just like there is no explicit mention of secession, yet both are still illegal. It has been established as legal precedent that states only have the right to revolt/secede in extenuating circumstances. The Civil War did not fall under that, no matter how much conservatives want to make the Civil War about nice people in the south being bullied just cause they owned human beings. You want something impossible from me, ironclad statements saying that succession is illegal. There is none. But there is even less in favor of your view, that states can leave the US whenever they feel like it. There is legal precedent directly rejecting this view.
 
Last edited:
rocket88 said:
That only works in some cases. When did the independent nation of Arkansas consent to joining the United States? Never. When did the independent "Kingdom of Iowa" accede to the Constitution? Never.

If the Constitution can be broken at any time, then there's no basis for it. There's nothing to stop any state from nullifying any Federal law.

If Texas can secede from the United States, why can't certain counties of Texas secede from Texas and rejoin the Union for a couple of weeks? Then rejoin when it's convienient again.
Click to expand...

How was the Constitution being broken by secession in 1861?

Quantrill
 
rocket88 said:
That only works in some cases. When did the independent nation of Arkansas consent to joining the United States? Never. When did the independent "Kingdom of Iowa" accede to the Constitution? Never.

If the Constitution can be broken at any time, then there's no basis for it. There's nothing to stop any state from nullifying any Federal law.

If Texas can secede from the United States, why can't certain counties of Texas secede from Texas and rejoin the Union for a couple of weeks? Then rejoin when it's convienient again.
Click to expand...

you are talking about unilateral succession.... i'm talking about getting prior consent of the many States
there is a huge difference.... one is unconstitutional, the other is not.
 
RadicalModerate said:
Zzzzzzzz, this is why I brought up DUIs and child porn. There is no explicit statement made against either, just like there is no explicit mention of secession, yet both are still illegal. It has been established as legal precedent that states only have the right to revolt/secede in extenuating circumstances. The Civil War did not fall under that, no matter how much conservatives want to make the Civil War about nice people in the south being bullied just cause they owned human beings. You want something impossible from me, ironclad statements saying that succession is illegal. There is none. But there is even less in favor of your view, that states can leave the US whenever they feel like it. There is legal precedent directly rejecting this view.
Click to expand...

It didn't stop you from declaring secession unconstitutional.

John Quincy Adams said in 1839:

"To the people alone is there reserved as well the dissolving as the constituent power...we may admit the same right as vested in the people of every state in the Union with reference to the jGeneral Government, which was exercised by the people of the united colonies with reference to the supreme head of the jBritish Empire, of which they formed a part; and under these lilmitations (i.e. that the act of secession follow a breach of contract and be answerable to conscience) have the people of each state in the Union a right to secede from the confedereated Union itself. "

from James M. Bulman, It Is Their Right, p. 61

Quantrill
 
Last edited:
Thrilla said:
nothing can constitutionally occur that affects the political jurisdiction or sovereignty of a State without consent of the States.
Click to expand...

What is that supposed to say. Sounds like BS.

Quantrill
 
And concerning the Constitution of 1787 the state of Virginia said when ratifying the Constitution:

"We the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected...do, in the name and behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them, whenever the same shall be perverted to their injuury or oppression."

Quantrill
 
Quantrill said:
It didn't stop you from declaring secession unconstitutional.

John Quincy Adams said in 1839:

"To the people alone is there reserved as well the dissolving as the constituent power...we may admit the same right as vested in the people of every state in the Union with reference to the jGeneral Government, which was exercised by the people of the united colonies with reference to the supreme head of the jBritish Empire, of which they formed a part; and under these lilmitations (i.e. that the act of secession follow a breach of contract and be answerable to conscience) have the people of each state in the Union a right to secede from the confedereated Union itself. "

from James M. Bulman, It Is Their Right, p. 61

Quantrill
Click to expand...

It IS unconstitutional, technically. That's why this is such a touchy subject, because it really does fall outside the general scope of Constitutional laws. Being a country born of revolution, we're are in a bit of an awkward spot; we acknowledge the right of revolution, considering we exercised it at one point. Most people would agree that when a government becomes despotic or is too far removed from the people's will, they have a right to dismantle it and rebuild to their liking. However, the right of revolution cannot be exercised like the right of free speech; this right carries very large responsibilities and high costs, thusly, it is limited. So, ironically, the Constitution holds two contradictory ideas; the right of revolution against government and also the protection of the government from uprising. So that's why there are so many strict limits and requirements for revolution to be legitimate.

In the sense you are talking about, the right of any state to pack up and leave whenever it feels like it, you are dead wrong. In the sense that thrilla is referring to it, I disagree about some specifics, but he is generally right, if I'm reading his posts correctly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom