• 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
Wiggen said:
The answer to your question is not only would I not mind, I'd help them pack. And times don't even have to get tough. Just leave.
Click to expand...

I applaud you on your statement. You are one of the few here who would allow another state to leave in peace. Good on ya.
 
RadicalModerate said:
Since I've been doing this for a while and need to leave, for now I'll only ask one thing of you, then I'll try to address you later on.

What would be some unintended consequences of every state reserving the right to become it's own sovereign nation at any time, no limits placed on this action?
Click to expand...


The Fedgov wouldn't be able to bully the states into doing everything its way all the time? :mrgreen:


Seriously... the benefits of remaining a part of the USA are obvious enough. States aren't likely to seceed willy-nilly everytime some Senator burps in a manner they find unpleasant. If we made it law tomorrow that any State could seceed on vote of 2/3rds of their population or legislature, I doubt any would do so. If they did, probably they'd be asking to be let back in within a few years.

Mass secession probably wouldn't occur unless the Fedgov seriously stepped over the line, or something else very drastic happened.
 
Last edited:
Always and everywhere we should support secession. Even Jefferson admitted as much. If we ever want a chance to have individuals participating in self-government, then secession is the only way to achieve it. We need governments reigning over smaller and smaller areas. Ideally, I would want that to extend all the way down to the family, but for now, state secession would be a great start.
 
If you go back to 1993, I would have said that we will do whatever the Sam Hell we want to do. Then came Governors Bush and Perry. They bent over backwards everytime the Feds said that they might withhold our highway funds. We've been pussified and stand no chance of standing up for ourselves in the future.

Gov. Ann Richards(D) would have told them where to put their highway funds.
 
Mickey Shane said:
If you go back to 1993, I would have said that we will do whatever the Sam Hell we want to do. Then came Governors Bush and Perry. They bent over backwards everytime the Feds said that they might withhold our highway funds. We've been pussified and stand no chance of standing up for ourselves in the future.

Gov. Ann Richards(D) would have told them where to put their highway funds.
Click to expand...

This has happened ever since the passage of the 16th amendment. That was the final blow to federalism.
 
phattonez said:
Always and everywhere we should support secession. Even Jefferson admitted as much. If we ever want a chance to have individuals participating in self-government, then secession is the only way to achieve it. We need governments reigning over smaller and smaller areas. Ideally, I would want that to extend all the way down to the family, but for now, state secession would be a great start.
Click to expand...

Thomas Jefferson enters the thread

090125-jefferson-tv1.jpg


lol
 
phattonez said:
Always and everywhere we should support secession. Even Jefferson admitted as much. If we ever want a chance to have individuals participating in self-government, then secession is the only way to achieve it. We need governments reigning over smaller and smaller areas. Ideally, I would want that to extend all the way down to the family, but for now, state secession would be a great start.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I really don't see why the right to secession and self-government isn't more widely supported. This would result in smaller, more personal government, answerable to their populations, as opposed to special interests.

Take a look at Iceland. When the politicians in other countries were busy figuring out how to kowtow to the international bankers and screw over their people, the people of Iceland took control and said "No way". I don't think this could ever have happened in a more populous country.
 
Centinel said:
I agree with you. I really don't see why the right to secession and self-government isn't more widely supported. This would result in smaller, more personal government, answerable to their populations, as opposed to special interests.

Take a look at Iceland. When the politicians in other countries were busy figuring out how to kowtow to the international bankers and screw over their people, the people of Iceland took control and said "No way". I don't think this could ever have happened in a more populous country.
Click to expand...

Well Iceland is a united people, America is a collection of squabbling fractions.
 
A very practical question here: let us put aside the political argument about if they could or could not. Lets assume Texas can leave if the people so desire it.

What type of financial costs would there be with such a situation?

Wouldn't that make it virtually impossible to then make that move?

What is the share of the national debt that each citizen owes - Texans included? If they wanted to leave, should then not pay their bills before being doing that?

What about Social Security and medicare?

What about federal property and buildings in Texas?
What about jobs Texans hold connected to the Federal government?

What happens to all this?
 
haymarket said:
A very practical question here: let us put aside the political argument about if they could or could not. Lets assume Texas can leave if the people so desire it.

What type of financial costs would there be with such a situation?

Wouldn't that make it virtually impossible to then make that move?

What is the share of the national debt that each citizen owes - Texans included? If they wanted to leave, should then not pay their bills before being doing that?

What about Social Security and medicare?

What about federal property and buildings in Texas?
What about jobs Texans hold connected to the Federal government?

What happens to all this?
Click to expand...

None of that matters, hay. The most important thing is the principle.
 
RadicalModerate said:
Lol, "prior to 1861". If you're gonna move goalposts to fit your argument, you might want to be more subtle about it.
Click to expand...

So far as I can tell, he hasn't moved the goalposts. He has asked repeatedly about BEFORE 1861.
 
RadicalModerate said:
None of that matters, hay. The most important thing is the principle.
Click to expand...

I strongly suspect you are correct. This is merely the latest excuse to trumpet far right ideology.

Sorry for trying to introduce some practical considerations into the mix. :(:3oops:
 
nota bene said:
So far as I can tell, he hasn't moved the goalposts. He has asked repeatedly about BEFORE 1861.
Click to expand...

....after insisting that it's still a legitimate right in our contemporary times. He's hedged his bets, so either way I lose the argument, cause he's a dishonest debater.

And were a state to try it again, the same thing would occur. Your free. Just don't try to leave.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
I'm not talking about a legal justification, I'm talking about a moral one.

Why does the will of those who don't live in the state, trump the will of those who DO live there, to be an independent nation instead of subject to the whims of others living 1500 miles away?

I'm looking for a good argument, based in moral/ethical or principled values, that says why the people of a state (especially one that used to be its own country), can't decide that they want their land to be an independent land. I'd be genuinely interested to hear one, because I'm having trouble thinking one up myself.

If the US could seceed from the UK, why can't Texas seceed from the US?

If the fundamental concept of private property is that you take what's there and mix your labor with it, and take ownership of the product thereby.... how can anyone who doesn't live in Texas claim the right to overrule the will of those who DO live in Texas?

I'd like to hear if someone can find a moral/ethical argument to justify this.
Click to expand...

This country is the of its citizens, not some subset of them. Thats the moral justification.
 
Canell said:
Howdy,

Let's assume times get tough, the US dollar crashes or something of that magnitude. Would you mind Texas secession if they choose to?

:peace
Click to expand...

Yes, I would. We don't have the ability to sustain ourselves without being attached to the federal government.
 
RadicalModerate said:
....after insisting that it's still a legitimate right in our contemporary times. He's hedged his bets, so either way I lose the argument, cause he's a dishonest debater.
Click to expand...

Can't speak to the legitimacy, but it's now unconstitutional, isn't it, for a state to secede?
 
Matt Foley said:
I think I already did



yeaaaah right.
Click to expand...

You didn't. I dont see in any of your examples of the constitution that prove secession is against the Constitution. You simply gave examples of a state in the Union. Big difference.

So, again, what does that have to do with secession?

Quantrill
 
RadicalModerate said:
....after insisting that it's still a legitimate right in our contemporary times. He's hedged his bets, so either way I lose the argument, cause he's a dishonest debater.
Click to expand...


You lose the argument because your wrong. Thats all. No need for me to move any goal posts. Ive always said up until 1861 it was constitutional. After that it doesn't matter because the North ran all over the Constitution. In other words, the Constitution doesn't matter. Power is all that mattered.

Quantrill
 
Lokiate said:
Yes, I would. We don't have the ability to sustain ourselves without being attached to the federal government.
Click to expand...

You been sucking on that Federal tit too long. You need to wean yourself off.

Quantrill
 
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...

Here's a novel idea; read before you comment. This information was right in front of you before and you chose not to read, so I'll make it easier for you this time.

David Crockett, dedicated his career to justice, truth, and liberty, and in the end gave his life up for freedom for the Texian people. He did NOT lay down his life for the Federal Government of the United States. He did not die for the STATE OF TEXAS. He died for the Republic of Texas.
Click to expand...

Republic of Texas - David Crockett

145924_1313592204291_full.jpg
 
Quantrill said:
You didn't. I dont see in any of your examples of the constitution that prove secession is against the Constitution. You simply gave examples of a state in the Union. Big difference.

So, again, what does that have to do with secession?

Quantrill
Click to expand...

States gave up their sovereignty when they joined the Union. See the Constitution for State restrictions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom