• 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 had asked whether the court cited any specific constitutional prohibition against a state leaving the union. None of these quotes do so.

Just the opposite. He states quite clearly that there is no such power to leave the union once joined because of the permanent nature of the Constitution itself.

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?

Chase is quoting directly from the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
I had asked whether the court cited any specific constitutional prohibition against a state leaving the union. None of these quotes do so.
Looks like it would be a waste of time considering you didn't read and/or understand the quotes he's already shown to you. Besides, all your going to do is dismiss anything anyone posts that doesn't fit your limited understanding of the constitution.
 
Looks like it would be a waste of time considering you didn't read and/or understand the quotes he's already shown to you. Besides, all your going to do is dismiss anything anyone posts that doesn't fit your limited understanding of the constitution.

We have pretty much shown that this is NOT about the Constitution. What it is about is a set of self imposed beliefs based on axioms that cannot be proven valid but are only accepted the way somebody accepts religious faith. Anything which deviates from that belief system is looked upon as foreign or false and is rejected.

It does not matter how many times reality is pointed out to some. They simply BELIEVE.
 
Courts are not infallible to be sure. But most of them do try to follow the Constitution as humanly possible.


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.

It talks of all engagements and the founders dismissed the connection of the AOC to it over and over again.

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.

As I said it was the goal of the country, nothing more and nothing less.

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.

The AOC is not standing so they shouldn't even be looking at it.
 
Last edited:
Just the opposite. He states quite clearly that there is no such power to leave the union once joined because of the permanent nature of the Constitution itself.

Chase is quoting directly from the Constitution.

Yes, I understand that he is quoting the preamble. I just don't see any language in the preamble that prohibits a state from leaving the union. In fact I don't see any language anywhere in the entire constitution that prohibits a state from leaving the union.
 
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

Is that why no liberal wants to follow such things as the commerce clause? :lamo
 
It talks of all engagements and the founders dismissed the connection of the AOC to it over and over again.
You're gonna have to show me because I haven't seen any evidence of that.



As I said it was the goal of the country, nothing and nothing less.
It was the 'intention" and the fact that it preceded the constitution gives it a lot of weight in what the constitution was for which was to provide a framework for a strong central government. Very little was mentioned about the states and the 10th amendment was almost an after thought since it was dead last on the Bill of Rights.



The AOC is not legally backed and the DOI is not law, so regardless of if they look at them they should not use them to find a ruling like Chase did.
The constitution didn't create the United States. That compact was already created under the AOC. The constitution recognizes the already existing United States in it's Preamble, "We the People of the United States". So yes, the Constitution does indeed legally back the AOC because that was the original compact that created the Union and from that the Constitution. No one said the DoI was a law until you just tried to say they did. A bit of deviousness on your part.
 
We have pretty much shown that this is NOT about the Constitution. What it is about is a set of self imposed beliefs based on axioms that cannot be proven valid but are only accepted the way somebody accepts religious faith. Anything which deviates from that belief system is looked upon as foreign or false and is rejected.

It does not matter how many times reality is pointed out to some. They simply BELIEVE.

Self-imposed beliefs based on axioms? Huh?

We're talking about whether the constitution prohibits a state from leaving the union. This has nothing to to with axioms and is simply an exercise in reading.

If one reads the constitution, one will see that it contains a list of powers (art I, sec 8) that the states delegated to the federal government. It then contains a list of restrictions on the states (art I, sec 10). It then says that anything that hasn't been delegated to the federal government or that hasn't be prohibited to the states is reserved to the states (10th amendment).

So, in order to answer the question of whether a state may secede is simply a matter of consulting these lists. Does art I, sec 8 indicate that congress has the power to keep a state in the union. No. Does art I, sec 10 prohibit a state from leaving the union? No. Therefore, per the 10th amendment, the power to do so is reserved to the states and is therefore allowed.

See. It's simply a matter of reading and understanding the rules.

The only ones clinging to axioms that cannot be proven are those who look at the text of the constitution and then ignore it completely and make up their own lists of things that states may and may not do.
 
To sum up the libertarian view here:

The 10th Amendment is Gospel! The Preamble means nothing and Article VI is just words.
 
To sum up the libertarian view here:

The 10th Amendment is Gospel! The Preamble means nothing and Article VI is just words.

I didn't say that. It covers plenty of engagements just not the AOC.
 
Yes, I understand that he is quoting the preamble. I just don't see any language in the preamble that prohibits a state from leaving the union. In fact I don't see any language anywhere in the entire constitution that prohibits a state from leaving the union.

There are none so blind as they who will not see.
 
There are none so blind as they who will not see.

Would you like to show me the language in the preamble that restricts a state's ability to withdraw from the union.

The preamble explains the reasons for creating the constitution.

Article I, section 10 lists the prohibitions on the states. There is no prohibition against a state exiting the union.

Where do you see such a prohibition?
 
Would you like to show me the language in the preamble that restricts a state's ability to withdraw from the union.

The preamble explains the reasons for creating the constitution.

Article I, section 10 lists the prohibitions on the states. There is no prohibition against a state exiting the union.

Where do you see such a prohibition?

It has already been explained to you that the power to secede DOES NOT EXIST. As such, it is NOT included in the Tenth Amendment language reserving other powers to the states. A power that does not exist, is not reserved to anyone because it does not exist.

I provided for you the exact text of the writings of Chief Justice Chase and his references to the US Constitution in his reasoning and his decision. If that is not good enough for you - so be it.

It was good enough for the majority of the US Supreme Court.
It was good enough for the nation.
And it is good enough for me.
 
Last edited:
I didn't say that. It covers plenty of engagements just not the AOC.

But it doesn't say anything about the Articles not being covered. Nowhere in the Constitution does it ever say that Article VI does not cover the Articles of Confederation as one of the "engagements."
 
Would you like to show me the language in the preamble that restricts a state's ability to withdraw from the union.

The preamble explains the reasons for creating the constitution.

Article I, section 10 lists the prohibitions on the states. There is no prohibition against a state exiting the union.

Where do you see such a prohibition?
Do you see any states seceding? If the constitution doesn't say anything about seceding then why aren't the states seceding?
 
Last edited:
There is no "my" or "your" natural law. There is only the law of nature.

And in nature no species of animal enslaves another of its own species to perform labor.

Therefore, slavery is goes against natural law.

And so the South had no justification for seceding because their reason to secede - to continue slavery - went against the human rights as seen by natural law of the slaves they wished to maintain.

My higher law says a state shoud be able to secede when it wants to. You say there is ony one law of nature. Where is that written? Who decided what it was? You Im sure as you agree with this so called higher law.

So, you say the North was right in allowing John Brown to terrorize the South. It was right for the Secret Six to fund this operation. Even though the South was obeying the constitution.

This is why the South seceded. They had no protections under the law. And the lawbreakers were lauded as heroes in the north. And they do so under the belief that they are just because they come under a higher law. Then when the South secedes, the South is the villian, bcause they (the north) say the constitution which they (the north) dont follow, doesn't allow for secession. What hpocrits.

Quantrill
 
Last edited:
Do you see any states seceding? If the constitution doesn't say anything about seceding then why aren't the states seceding?

Because it was made clear that the Fed. govt. will go to war over secession.

Quantrill
 
It has already been explained to you that the power to secede DOES NOT EXIST. As such, it is NOT included in the Tenth Amendment language reserving other powers to the states. A power that does not exist, is not reserved to anyone because it does not exist.

I provided for you the exact text of the writings of Chief Justice Chase and his references to the US Constitution in his reasoning and his decision. If that is not good enough for you - so be it.

It was good enough for the majority of the US Supreme Court.
It was good enough for the nation.
And it is good enough for me.
It's good enough for me too. But I think you might be trying to prove a negative. For instance, if the right to secession doesn't exist in the constitution then how can you prove it doesn't exist....or something like that? However, in this case I think the answer might be "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." If the states had the right to secede, then they would have seceded. But the fact that not a single state has seceded even though some want to, suggests they don't have the right to secede.
 
Do you see any states seceding? If the constitution doesn't say anything about seceding then why aren't the states seceding?

They may not wish to. They may secede; they don't have to secede.
 
To Quantrill:

Do you respect the institution of slavery?

I respect the Souths right to slavery in 1860 as protected by the Constitution of the United States. Which self-righteouss damnyankees didn't and don't.

Quantrill
 
I respect the Souths right to slavery in 1860 as protected by the Constitution of the United States....


right, cause' black people were just property...not human beings.

when it comes to the Civil War, the South has ZERO moral standing.
 
Last edited:
It has already been explained to you that the power to secede DOES NOT EXIST.

States may do anything not prohibited by the constitution. How can you say leaving the union doesn't exist. It is a thing that can be done, a power that can be exercised. Are you denying the very existence of a concept? WTF?

As such, it is NOT included in the Tenth Amendment language reserving other powers to the states. A power that does not exist, is not reserved to anyone because it does not exist.

So the thing you are describing to me doesn't exist? There is no concept of secession? Well if there's not such thing as secession, well then I guess states can't do it.

WTF are you talking about? Of course secession exists. And because secession is not prohibited to the states, it is allowed.

I provided for you the exact text of the writings of Chief Justice Chase and his references to the US Constitution in his reasoning and his decision. If that is not good enough for you - so be it.

His reasoning is ridiculous. He totally flubbed this one. Article I, section 10 places no restriction on a state leaving the union. The preamble places no restriction on a state leaving the union. What is not prohibited to the states is allowed.

Sorry, but that decision is not based upon the rules written down in the constitution. It was based upon Justice Chase's beliefs.

It was good enough for the majority of the US Supreme Court.
It was good enough for the nation.
And it is good enough for me.

Because it fits your self-imposed beliefs.
 
The Constitution doesn't prohibit genocide.

Does that mean Delaware is allowed to commit genocide?

Yes, the constitution does prevent genocide. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
 
Back
Top Bottom