• 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!

Would you support the right of Texas to secede?

Would you support the decision of Texas to peacefully and democratically secede, if voted upon


  • Total voters
    133
I have. Multiple times. Rights are created by society and the ability of society to sustain them. Absent the order and protection of society there are no rights save those which you can seize for yourself. Further you fundamentally misunderstand what the Court does and where its basis for interpretation comes from. I suggest you read up more on the subject.

you have done nothing........where are rights granted?... show it to me...........

the constitution states plainly in it powers are granted to the federal government.....where are rights granted?

rights are not created by people.....because they is no law in u.s. history which has granted the people a right.
 
Oh it most certainly is. We were merely merciful when we chose to forego treason charges against members of the so called Confederate government.


oh no its not...treason is to impose a war on the u.s. by citizens or to aid an enemy of the u.s.
 
Are you serious? In this age of cameras everywhere, you think killing and imprisoning american who are peacefully non complying wouldnt look bad on TV? Do you think the military would accept an order to kill Texans who resisted? It didnt work with that farmer in the midwest who resisted the police with guns on horses. Because there were cameras.

Don't resist arrest and you wont be shot. If a legislature tries to break away from the Union, if 'militia' tried to seize government property, if anything at all that smacks of treasonous secession is in the air then yes they are going to be arrested and stamped out by the authorities. This is purely the realm of fantasy but it's always fun to burst the illusions of would be secessionists: If you try and secede get ready to die.
 
Don't resist arrest and you wont be shot. If a legislature tries to break away from the Union, if 'militia' tried to seize government property, if anything at all that smacks of treasonous secession is in the air then yes they are going to be arrested and stamped out by the authorities. This is purely the realm of fantasy but it's always fun to burst the illusions of would be secessionists: If you try and secede get ready to die.

you have got your wires crossed


insurrections of a state government the federal government has authority to quell.

secession is not an insurrection
 
Are you serious? When did anyone argue that the court is a law making body? The role of the Supreme Court is to discern what is and what is not in accord with the Constitution. That being said the Supreme Court has certainly 'created' law at various times in its history even if we choose not to call it that. Some scholars will go so far as to say that Brown v. Board was essentially a time of dejure 'Constitutional Amendment' due to the nature of the decision, the way it was organized, and its colossal impact.
:roll:
 
Don't resist arrest and you wont be shot. If a legislature tries to break away from the Union, if 'militia' tried to seize government property, if anything at all that smacks of treasonous secession is in the air then yes they are going to be arrested and stamped out by the authorities. This is purely the realm of fantasy but it's always fun to burst the illusions of would be secessionists: If you try and secede get ready to die.


a person who does not believe in self- government
 
Yes indeed, so you feel that the right of self-determination was OK in 1776, but that since 1787-89 this right should no longer apply.

since we have what the people in 1776 wanted yes until such time as that's no longer the case
 
LOLOLOLOL, that's a court decision, not a constitutional amendment!! Geez, dude, if you're going to try to play games with me, at least get your terminology right. Then maybe someday, you can upgrade to getting all the facts right!



Ah yes, the obligatory hideous grammar and spelling. Reminds me of this:

lfmtube

hey now hideous grammar and spelling is a specialty o mine and im not like that at all and you can be way to religious and handle language just fine
 
if the state takes a vote, then all of the people have the right to vote in the way they desire...no one is being denied..their voice is being heard.

if a convention is held, the people vote for a person they wish to represent them at the convention ..so the people are being represented by the person of their choice their voice is being heard.

when the constitution was ratified it was by convention..the people were represented.

then by that principle either leaving the union is not justified when you have representation or else your representation no longer binds you when you feel its not working for you
 
since we have what the people in 1776 wanted yes until such time as that's no longer the case

did you know that the declaration of independence lays the founding principles of america, and that u.s. federal law recognizes those principles.

one principle being self -government.
 
sorry, people have a right to alter or abolish their government....there is no right to own another person.



those that say rights are created by man
..

if that were true then the people could hold a convention and create the right to own other people.


but man does not create his own rights, and cannot create such a a thing.

till the people alter the government to suite what they want
 
rights are recognized by the constitution, those which are not recognized in it fall under the 9th amendment and are recognized by the USSC which is not a law making body, and is not electable by the people.

Unwritten Law

Unwritten rules, principles, and norms that have the effect and force of law though they have not been formally enacted by the government.

Most laws in America are written. The U.S. Code, the Code of Federal Regulations, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are three examples of written laws that are frequently cited in federal court. Each state has a similar body of written laws. By contrast, unwritten law consists of those customs, traditions, practices, usages, and other maxims of human conduct ---- that the government has recognized -------and enforced.

Unwritten law is most commonly found in primitive societies where illiteracy is prevalent. Because many residents in such societies cannot read or write, there is little point in publishing written laws to govern their conduct. Instead, societal disputes in primitive societies are resolved informally, through appeal to unwritten maxims of fairness or popularly accepted modes of behavior. Litigants present their claims orally in most primitive societies, and judges announce their decisions in the same fashion. The governing body in primitive societies typically enforces the useful traditions that are widely practiced in the community, while those practices that are novel or harmful fall into disuse or are discouraged.

Much of International Law is a form of primitive unwritten law. For centuries the Rules of War governing hostilities between belligerents consisted of a body of unwritten law. While some of these rules have been codified by international bodies such as the United Nations, many have not. For example, retaliatory reprisals against acts of Terrorism by a foreign government are still governed by unwritten customs in the international community. Each nation also retains discretion in formulating a response to the aggressive acts of a neighboring state.

In the United States, unwritten law takes on a variety of forms. In Constitutional Law the Supreme Court has ruled that the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to privacy even though the word privacy is not mentioned in the written text of the Constitution. In Commercial Law the Uniform Commercial Code permits merchants to resolve legal disputes by introducing evidence of unwritten customs, practices, and usages that others in the same trade generally follow. The entire body of Common Law, comprising cases decided by judges on matters relating to torts and contracts, among other things, is said to reflect unwritten standards that have evolved over time. In each case, however, once a court, legislature, or other government body formally adopts a standard, principle, or Maxim in writing, it ceases to be an unwritten law.

principles :.....as in the principles of the declaration of independence, which are recognized by u.s. federal law.

maxims of human conduct ............natural rights.

that the government has recognized
..........natural rights which are recognized by the constitution.

and enforced.........natural rights are enforced by man made laws, which are .........postive law/statutes.

unwritten law legal definition of unwritten law

____________________________________________________________________________________
Victory! Federal Court Recognizes Constitutional Rights of Americans on the No-Fly List

https://www.aclu.org/blog/victory-f...s-constitutional-rights-americans-no-fly-list
[/QUOTE]

all man made and changeable by man
 
then by that principle either leaving the union is not justified when you have representation or else your representation no longer binds you when you feel its not working for you

the constitution states that the federal government can put an end to insurrection, which of coarse is not secession.

self -government is a principle of our nation..its right of the people.

people are not bound to the union.

William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States 295--304, 305--7 1829 (2d ed.)

The Union is an association of the people of republics; its preservation is calculated to depend on the preservation of those republics. The people of each pledge themselves to preserve that form of government in all. Thus each becomes responsible to the rest, that no other form of government shall prevail in it, and all are bound to preserve it in every one.

But the mere compact, without the power to enforce it, would be of little value. Now this power can be no where so properly lodged, as in the Union itself. Hence, the term guarantee, indicates that the United States are authorized to oppose, and if possible, prevent every state in the Union from relinquishing the republican form of government, and as auxiliary means, they are expressly authorized and required to employ their force on the application of the constituted authorities of each state, "to repress domestic violence." If a faction should attempt to subvert the government of a state for the purpose of destroying its republican form, the paternal power of the Union could thus be called forth to subdue it.

Yet it is not to be understood, that its interposition would be justifiable, if the people of a state should determine to retire from the Union, whether they adopted another or retained the same form of government, or if they should, with the express intention of seceding, expunge the representative system from their code, and thereby incapacitate themselves from concurring according to the mode now prescribed, in the choice of certain public officers of the United States.

The principle of representation, although certainly the wisest and best, is not essential to the being of a republic, but to continue a member of the Union, it must be preserved, and therefore the guarantee must be so construed. It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.

This right must be considered as an ingredient in the original composition of the general government, which, though not expressed, was mutually understood, and the doctrine heretofore presented to the reader in regard to the indefeasible nature of personal allegiance, is so far qualified in respect to allegiance to the United States. It was observed, that it was competent for a state to make a compact with its citizens, that the reciprocal obligations of protection and allegiance might cease on certain events; and it was further observed, that allegiance would necessarily cease on the dissolution of the society to which it was due.

The states, then, may wholly withdraw from the Union, but while they continue, they must retain the character of representative republics. Governments of dissimilar forms and principles cannot long maintain a binding coalition. "Greece," says Montesquieu, "was undone as soon as the king of Macedon obtained a seat in the amphyctionic council." It is probable, however, that the disproportionate force as well as the monarchical form of the new confederate had its share of influence in the event. But whether the historical fact supports the theory or not, the principle in respect to ourselves is unquestionable.
 
Last edited:
In American Constitutional Law, fundamental rights have special significance under the U.S. Constitution. Those rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution are recognized as "fundamental" by the U.S. Supreme Court. According to the Supreme Court, enumerated rights that are incorporated are so fundamental that any law restricting such a right must both serve a compelling state purpose and be narrowly tailored to that compelling purpose.

Supreme Court to Decide Whether States Must Recognize Same-Sex Marriage

Supreme Court to Decide Whether States Must Recognize Same-Sex Marriage - WSJ

U.S. SUPREME COURT MUST RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE RIGHTS OF SAME-SEX COUPLES, SAYS HUMANIST GROUP

U.S. Supreme Court Must Recognize Marriage Rights of Same-Sex Couples, Says Humanist Group

the Supreme Court also recognized that the right of the parents to delegate their authority to a teacher in order to instruct their children was protected within the liberty of the Fourteenth Amendment. 4
Decisions of the United States Supreme Court Upholding Parental Rights as "Fundamental"HSLDA | National Center Special Report
[/QUOTE]

well after you levee the union it doesn't matter what the supreme court or the constitution says
 
did you know that the declaration of independence lays the founding principles of america, and that u.s. federal law recognizes those principles.

one principle being self -government.

to bad you have to be under the constitution for it to apply to you

you can vote like other Americans then you have self government

all of the states are our country
 
all this states is rights are recognized, and not created by man.

no u.s. law has ever created a right.

I do not know what nation you pretend to live in but in the USA the 15th Amendment effectively gave African Americans the right to vote while the 19th effectively gave females the right to vote. The 17th Amendment gave the people of the state the right to vote for their US Senators.
 
are you asking where were they at from which men drew them ?

Where were these rights that the men who wrote the Constitution could (in your words) recognize them?
 
to bad you have to be under the constitution for it to apply to you

you can vote like other Americans then you have self government

all of the states are our country

the constitutional law does not apply to Citizens......federal law does.
 
Back
Top Bottom