• 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
Moot said:
You have a very juvenile understanding of the Constitution. Thank God the framers were smart enough to institute a court to interpret it instead of leaving it to the states. Otherwise this country would have been reduced to bunch of petty little fifedoms full petty little tyrants bickering and warring with each other a long time ago.
Click to expand...

It should be noted that even the founders came to realize the failure of the supreme court.
 
Moot said:
You have a very juvenile understanding of the Constitution. Thank God the framers were smart enough to institute a court to interpret it instead of leaving it to the states. Otherwise this country would have been reduced to bunch of petty little fifedoms full petty little tyrants bickering and warring with each other a long time ago.
Click to expand...

So you think the court's decision was consistent with the constitution. Okay, what prohibition did they cite that prevents a state from leaving the union?
 
Centinel said:
So you think the court's decision was consistent with the constitution. Okay, what prohibition did they cite that prevents a state from leaving the union?
Click to expand...

im a little hazy on this,but i believe it was no part of the constitution,but rather the federalist papers the declaration of independance and the articles of confederation were all used in the court decision.
 
haymarket said:
NO. You simply see something there which is not there. You have adopted a self imposed beliefs system based on axioms which cannot be proven nor disproved and you allow those to trump reality.
Click to expand...

Um, no. I am basing my opinion on the constitution. I have no idea upon what you are basing your position, but it certainly is not the constitution.

The constitution clearly says that powers not prohibited to the states are reserved to the states. There is no prohibition on the power of a state to leave the union, therefore, states have that power.
 
beerftw said:
im a little hazy on this,but i believe it was no part of the constitution,but rather the federalist papers the declaration of independance and the articles of confederation were all used in the court decision.
Click to expand...

Despite the fact that the constitution is the supreme law of the land?

Judicial fail.
 
Centinel said:
Despite the fact that the constitution is the supreme law of the land?

Judicial fail.
Click to expand...

they also use jefferson when interperating the first amendment even though madison wrote it and was the father of not only the first amendment,but the bil of rights,yet the courts ignore him and chose jefferson who other some phrases had no part of the first amendment,and even jefferson states he should not be a constitutional authority,as he was involved in foreign relations in france during its creation.

its kinda like have a chevy break down,then telling chevy that have no clue about the car they made and then calling ford to find out whats wrong with it.
 
Centinel said:
Whaaaaa???

The supremacy clause simply states that the constitution is the supreme law of the land.
Click to expand...
If it's so simple then why don't you understand it?



The 10th amendment says that anything that is not prohibited to the states is permitted.
Click to expand...
The SCOTUS ruled the states are prohibited from seceding.

And where in the constitution does it prohibit the states from seceding?
Click to expand...
For the fourth time, its found in the power delegated to the Supreme Court, Article 3 of the constitution. You should read it sometime.
 
Centinel said:
So you think the court's decision was consistent with the constitution. Okay, what prohibition did they cite that prevents a state from leaving the union?
Click to expand...

On a previous page, I provided the reasoning from Chief Justice Chase.

By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?
Click to expand...

and more from Chase


“
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.
Click to expand...

and more from the Chief Justice

“
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.
Click to expand...

The Court clearly does NOT see it as you do.

Nor does the current most conservative Justice on the Court Antonin Scalia

"I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.
Click to expand...


Since Justice Scalia has discussed the Tenth Amendment at length throughout his career, he obviously is informed about it.
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
If it's so simple then why don't you understand it?



The SCOTUS ruled the states are prohibited from seceding.

For the fourth time, its found in the power delegated to the Supreme Court, Article 3 of the constitution. You should read it sometime.
Click to expand...

the irony is they had nothing to rule off of,that desicion itself is on par with bypassing the constitution.btw the constitution does not grant scotus the power to rule on constitutionality,scotus granted itself that power,prior to scotus granting itself power over the constitution,any court could rule on it and it would only reach a higher court if further challenged.
 
Moot said:
For the fourth time, its found in the power delegated to the Supreme Court, Article 3 of the constitution. You should read it sometime.
Click to expand...

Article 3 assigns the judicial power to the supreme court.

Let me ask you a question. If someone were to ask you, "Where in the constitution does it say that the president's term is 4 years?" Would you say, article 3? Or would you say Article 2, section 1?

If the supreme court were to decide that the president's term was to be 5 years rather than 4, would you just shrug your shoulders and say, "Well, article 3 gives the supreme court the power to interpret the constitution, so I guess the supreme court must be right..."

I am asking where in the constitution it says that a state is prohibited from leaving the union. I am well aware that the judicial power is vested in the supreme court, and I am well aware that the supreme court has ruled that secession is unconstitutional. However, I am questioning the validity of their ruling, and am asking you upon what they based their ruling.

You, of course, will respond with something like, "For the fifth time, because the supreme court said so", so I don't hold out much hope of any further fruitful dialog. I'm hitting the rack. See you all tomorrow.
 
Centinel said:
Um, no. I am basing my opinion on the constitution.
Click to expand...
No your not. You're basing your opinion on your own opinion of the constitution, not what it really says or does.

I have no idea upon what you are basing your position, but it certainly is not the constitution.
Click to expand...
If you have no idea then you don't understand the constitution.

The constitution clearly says that powers not prohibited to the states are reserved to the states. There is no prohibition on the power of a state to leave the union, therefore, states have that power.
Click to expand...
What is it about the Supreme court that you don't understand? You seem wanton to ignore it's existence in this discussion.
 
haymarket said:
On a previous page, I provided the reasoning from Chief Justice Chase.



and more from Chase
Click to expand...

And yet you don't seem to understand he just created power when none existed and created a false reality in using the AOC as if it was still standing. It also completely misses the point it was the PEOPLE in reference, but don't let any of this stop you.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
And yet you don't seem to understand he just created power when none existed and created a false reality in using the AOC as if it was still standing. It also completely misses the point it was the PEOPLE in reference, but don't let any of this stop you.
Click to expand...

The power where none existed is the power to quit the nation.

It does not exist. Thus it is not impacted by the Tenth Amendment.
 
haymarket said:
The power where none existed is the power to quit the nation.

It does not exist. Thus it is not impacted by the Tenth Amendment.
Click to expand...

Keep telling yourself that the words "to form a more perfect nation" has power hay and continue to not find any evidence behind such a belief system.

This **** is almost as dumb as Hank Johnson saying the preamble allows UHC or his famous capsizing island comment.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Keep telling yourself that the words "to form a more perfect nation" has power hay and continue to not find any evidence behind such a belief system.
Click to expand...

I do not have the slightest idea what you are talking about. Do you? Why then cannot you explain it?
 
haymarket said:
I do not have the slightest idea what you are talking about. Do you? Why then cannot you explain it?
Click to expand...

I did. What part of it having no power what so ever do you not understand?
 
Henrin said:
I did. What part of it having no power what so ever do you not understand?
Click to expand...
I'm not seeing where you get that Chief Justice Chase "created power when none existed and created a false reality". Where do you get this from and don't say the Constitution because the Constitution explicity gives the Supreme Court the power to interpret the Constitution.
 
Moot said:
I'm not seeing where you get that Chief Justice Chase "created power when none existed and created a false reality". Where do you get this from and don't say the Constitution because the Constitution explicity gives the Supreme Court the power to interpret the Constitution.
Click to expand...

The founders?? What do you use when you figure out if the Supreme court got it right? The court? That is just laughable if so.

False reality #1:

AOC is not standing and Article six only covers standing engagements at the time. This does not reference the AOC so bring it up is like bringing up the monsters under your bed when you are thirty six. It's completely pathetic for someone to do in his position. When the founders make it a point to say they are throwing it out and that article six is only covering engagements left standing they meant it.

False reality #2:

The words to form a more perfect union was never said by any founder to have power and it was merely describing the goals of what they were putting out. It had nothing to do with states rights or secession and it never gave any authority to anyone.

Its interesting that all three Justices that went by the name of Chase were douchebags. At least one was punished for it.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
The founders?? What do you use when you figure out if the Supreme court got it right? The court? That is just laughable if so.
Click to expand...

Courts are not infallible to be sure. But most of them do try to follow the Constitution as humanly possible.

False reality #1:

AOC is not standing and Article six only covers standing engagements at the time. This does not reference the AOC so bring it up is like bringing up the monsters under your bed when you are thirty six. It's completely pathetic for someone to do in his position. When the founders make it a point to say they are throwing it out and that article six is only covering engagements left standing they meant it.
Click to expand...
Article Six references the AOC as the Confederation and says that all debts contracted and engagements entered into under the Confederation remain valid under the new Constitution. One of those engagements entered into was the formation of a perpetual union among the states. Article six doesn't dissolve that engagement, it validates it.

False reality #2:

The words to form a more perfect union was never said by any founder to have power and it was merely describing the goals of what they were putting out. It had nothing to do with states rights or secession and it never gave any authority to anyone.
Click to expand...
The very first thing the Preamble says is "We the People of the United States" which means the people were already a united states before the constitution was written. How were they were united? By the AoC of course. The Preamble was meant to show the intention of the existing "United States" to form a stronger national government in order to make a more perfect union. The union under the AoC was less than perfect because the central government was weak and so the Constitution was ordained by the people to form a stronger one with more permanency.

But you're right the courts don't use the Preamble to base their rulings on, but they do however look to it to help them find the framers "intentions", just as they look to the Federalist Papers, the AoC, the Declaration of Independence, letters and essays written by the founding fathers before and after the signing of the Constitution and more.

Chief Justice Chase was right, it was the intention of the people of the United States to form a stronger more permanent union....

"....The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [p725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

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.
Texas v. White - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
from Moot

The very first thing the Preamble says is "We the People of the United States" which means the people were already a united states before the constitution was written. How were they were united? By the AoC of course. The Preamble was meant to show the intention of the existing "United States" to form a stronger national government in order to make a more perfect union. The union under the AoC was less than perfect because the central government was weak and so the Constitution was ordained by the people to form a stronger one with more permanency.

But you're right the courts don't use the Preamble to base their rulings on, but they do however look to it to help them find the framers "intentions", just as they look to the Federalist Papers, the AoC, the Declaration of Independence, letters and essays written by the founding fathers before and after the signing of the Constitution and more.
Click to expand...

It is more than a bit revealing that the modern conservative and libertarian shows nearly complete loathing for the part of the Constitution labeled as the Preamble but they have no problem elevating the personal writings and observations of individuals to the level of scared text well above the Preamble.
 
haymarket said:
from Moot



It is more than a bit revealing that the modern conservative and libertarian shows nearly complete loathing for the part of the Constitution labeled as the Preamble but they have no problem elevating the personal writings and observations of individuals to the level of scared text well above the Preamble.
Click to expand...

From reading some of J. Madison's later writings, even in his day conservatives (especially S. Carolina) had loathing for the entire Constitution except of course for the 10th amendment. So what surprises me is how little has changed. lol
 
JuanBatista said:
May I ask, are you involved with the secession movement?
And are you aware that secesson sentiment in TX is virtually all among very conservative whites? The Latino population would oppose this to their last breath, as would progressive cities like Austin.
Any secession attempt would lead to violence and a shattered state.
Click to expand...

I don't actively take action to forward Texas towards secession, I would simply highly support it if it were to come to pass.

Why the hell would I care about the demographics of something I support? I believe what I believe regardless of party lines and race. Perhaps you consider grouping yourself into an ideological and race based clique to be an effective argument, but I don't.
 
haymarket said:
On a previous page, I provided the reasoning from Chief Justice Chase.

and more from Chase

and more from the Chief Justice

The Court clearly does NOT see it as you do.

Nor does the current most conservative Justice on the Court Antonin Scalia
Click to expand...

I had asked whether the court cited any specific constitutional prohibition against a state leaving the union. None of these quotes do so.
 
Moot said:
No your not. You're basing your opinion on your own opinion of the constitution, not what it really says or does.

If you have no idea then you don't understand the constitution.

What is it about the Supreme court that you don't understand? You seem wanton to ignore it's existence in this discussion.
Click to expand...

I understand that the supreme court's job is to judge cases. I am not disputing that their job is to judge cases. I am criticizing their decision in this particular instance.

I think they got it wrong because 1) there is no constitutional prohibition against a state leaving (Look in article I, section 10, that lists the prohibitions on states) and 2) the 10th amendment says that the states have the power to act in any manner that is not prohibited by the constitution.

Again, I am not saying that the court may not make decisions. Of course, that is the court's job. I am simply critiquing this particular decision.

If you think they got it right, then I would like to hear why. If you think my critique is wrong, again, tell me why.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom