• 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
OK, and now the real and true test would be to have one or more states actually vote to secede from the union once again, then we'll see if the feds once again assert their power to preserve the union.

Not that such a thing is likely any time soon, but it could happen.

what i stated was the u.s.federal government would be violating its very own enabling law.

how can the right of self determination of the people, say of Montana be outside of the laws of the u.s. since the u.s. federal government voted and stated the rights to self determination was not, when it passed the enabling law for the state of Montana.

it would be the u.s.federal government violating the law and rights of people if they tried to stop Montana.....according to its very own law.
 
what i stated was the u.s.federal government would be violating its very own enabling law.

how can the right of self determination of the people, say of Montana be outside of the laws of the u.s. since the u.s. federal government voted and stated the rights to self determination was not, when it passed the enabling law for the state of Montana.

it would be the u.s.federal government violating the law and rights of people if they tried to stop Montana.....according to its very own law.

The federal government violates the Constitution all the time. Why would violating enabling laws be a problem?
 
The federal government violates the Constitution all the time. Why would violating enabling laws be a problem?

very true!

i am just pointing at to those who say that if a state were to leave the union it violates the constitution, and it does not according to the actions of congress.
 
you have no right to food water shelter in america, because they are commodities and have to be created by someone.......do you think you have a right to steal property of the people?

you do not understand your rights at all.

you see popularly and power do determine what a right is and people do come up with ones you don't like
 
you see popularly and power do determine what a right is and people do come up with ones you don't like

i am sorry you and your understanding of rights, in america no person has the RIGHT to food, water or shelter, those things have to be created.
 
sorry no, natural rights follow what is natural to the body.

they are not rights that anyone just thinks up.

If a person is denied food to eat, that person will eventually die of starvation.

If a person is denied water to drink, that person will eventually die of dehydration.

If a person is denied shelter, that person could die from exposure to the elements.

If the human body is affected by hunger and thirst, and needs protection from the elements, how can food, water, and shelter not possibly be natural rights.
 
Yes they are. You are talking about abilities, not rights.

If I can do something and it doesn't act upon you or your property is there a reason I don't have a right to it?
 
If a person is denied food to eat, that person will eventually die of starvation.

If a person is denied water to drink, that person will eventually die of dehydration.

If a person is denied shelter, that person could die from exposure to the elements.

If the human body is affected by hunger and thirst, and needs protection from the elements, how can food, water, and shelter not possibly be natural rights.

Those are natural consequences of not having needed resources, not rights. If you can acquire the food, water and shelter without aggressing on anyone else then you have a right to whatever you acquired, otherwise you don't. For example, if you steal from someone in order to buy food then your claims are forfeit, but if you trade for food or grow the food then your claims are justified and you have a right to it.
 
Yes they are. You are talking about abilities, not rights.

the ability of people to perform actions /conduct is a right.

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 <--------self evident truths........... of human conduct <-------------natural rights.........that the government recognized ,<------------recognized in the constitution................and enforced<---------------by positive law/statute.

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.

unwritten law legal definition of unwritten law

Unwritten law refers to the law based upon custom, usage, and judicial decisions. It is distinguished from the enactments of a legislature, orders or decrees in writing. Although an unwritten law is not enacted in the form of statute or ordinance, it has got legal sanction. An unwritten law need not be expressly evidenced in court decisions, but may be collected, gathered or implied there from under statute.

In In re Estate of Spoya, 129 Mont. 83 (Mont. 1955), the court held that unwritten law is the law not promulgated and recorded, but which is, nevertheless, observed and administered in the courts of the country. It has no certain repository, but is collected from the reports of the decisions of the courts and treatises of learned men.

Unwritten Law Law & Legal Definition


https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/lawreview.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/80_2/03_Nelson.pdf

State and Federal Models of the Interaction between Statutes and Unwritten Law
 
Last edited:
If a person is denied food to eat, that person will eventually die of starvation.

If a person is denied water to drink, that person will eventually die of dehydration.

If a person is denied shelter, that person could die from exposure to the elements.

If the human body is affected by hunger and thirst, and needs protection from the elements, how can food, water, and shelter not possibly be natural rights.

you have natural right/ ability to seek those commodities, you don't have a right to have them handed to you on a sliver platter
 
Last edited:
the ability of people to perform actions /conduct is a right.

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 <--------self evident truths........... of human conduct <-------------natural rights.........that the government recognized ,<------------recognized in the constitution................and enforced<---------------by positive law/statute.

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.

unwritten law legal definition of unwritten law

Unwritten law refers to the law based upon custom, usage, and judicial decisions. It is distinguished from the enactments of a legislature, orders or decrees in writing. Although an unwritten law is not enacted in the form of statute or ordinance, it has got legal sanction. An unwritten law need not be expressly evidenced in court decisions, but may be collected, gathered or implied there from under statute.

In In re Estate of Spoya, 129 Mont. 83 (Mont. 1955), the court held that unwritten law is the law not promulgated and recorded, but which is, nevertheless, observed and administered in the courts of the country. It has no certain repository, but is collected from the reports of the decisions of the courts and treatises of learned men.

Unwritten Law Law & Legal Definition


https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/lawreview.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/80_2/03_Nelson.pdf

State and Federal Models of the Interaction between Statutes and Unwritten Law

You keep using the very things that prove you wrong. Rights come from government, from societies because people recognize them, because people grant them as what they see as being rights. A right to life does not mean that you are alive, living. It means that someone cannot take your life from you or even attempt to do so without either a) valid legal justification or b) facing consequences from someone else, most likely society.
 
You keep using the very things that prove you wrong. Rights come from government, from societies because people recognize them, because people grant them as what they see as being rights. A right to life does not mean that you are alive, living. It means that someone cannot take your life from you or even attempt to do so without either a) valid legal justification or b) facing consequences from someone else, most likely society.

:lamo..you tell me i am wrong, and i have proved legal information........NOW its your turn, you prove legal information which proves i am wrong!

now i already know you cannot do it.....so stop with your show....its tiring
 
If I can do something and it doesn't act upon you or your property is there a reason I don't have a right to it?

But that is the point. You don't have a natural right to do so. It is dependent on society recognizing those things as rights. Anything/everything you do affects others, even living. In living, you use resources that means less resources for others. The reason that you are able to live is because either a) society recognizes you have a right to use the resources too or b) you are able to defend the resources you are using against those who would take them away.
 
:lamo..you tell me i am wrong, and i have proved legal information........NOW its your turn, you prove legal information which proves i am wrong!

now i already now you cannot do it.....so stop with your show....its tiring

The very fact that you are using legal information proves you wrong. Legality is completely dependent on recognition within the law of the society you live in. It is subjective, and therefore could not be a "natural right".
 
The very fact that you are using legal information proves you wrong. Legality is completely dependent on recognition within the law of the society you live in. It is subjective, and therefore could not be a "natural right".

i asked you to show me legal information proving me wrong....do it...dont just say it........do it now
 
i asked you to show me legal information proving me wrong....do it...dont just say it........do it now

You are failing to grasp that you cannot claim that we have natural rights because our laws say we do. That is convoluted logic.
 
You are failing to grasp that you cannot claim that we have natural rights because our laws say we do. That is convoluted logic.

:lamo..so you going to say you cant claim we have natural rights...because of the law .......which SAYS ITS FACT.....

but you are going to say, no we don't have natural rights .....BECAUSE YOU SAY SO..

when you can produce more then your own personal words, come talk to me.
 
But that is the point. You don't have a natural right to do so. It is dependent on society recognizing those things as rights. Anything/everything you do affects others, even living. In living, you use resources that means less resources for others. The reason that you are able to live is because either a) society recognizes you have a right to use the resources too or b) you are able to defend the resources you are using against those who would take them away.

Hmm. You know, I don't really care for you changing my argument to make your point. I said "act upon" for a reason and that reason is because that is what is necessary for the action in question to not be your right to do. The word affect is not a synonym of act and I didn't use it for the very reason that someone would say that everyone affects others by existing.
 
Hmm. You know, I don't really care for you changing my argument to make your point. I said "act upon" for a reason and that reason is because that is what is necessary for the action in question to not be your right to do. The word affect is not a synonym of act and I didn't use it for the very reason that someone would say that everyone affects others by existing.

You are acting upon the resources, using them up by your existing. What gives you the right to do that? What prevents others from taking away your life so that they can live or live "better"/longer?
 
:lamo..so you going to say you cant claim we have natural rights...because of the law .......which SAYS ITS FACT.....

but you are going to say, no we don't have natural rights .....BECAUSE YOU SAY SO..

when you can produce more then your own personal words, come talk to me.

You are saying we do have natural rights because you say we do. That doesn't make it true. Even the "law" saying we do doesn't make it true.
 
You are acting upon the resources, using them up by your existing. What gives you the right to do that? What prevents others from taking away your life so that they can live or live "better"/longer?

I'm using up resources that I acquired through free means free any aggression on anyone else. Locke went over this in his acorn example:

"He that is nourished by the acorns he picked up under an oak, or the apples he gathered from the trees in the wood, has certainly appropriated them to himself. Nobody can deny but the nourishment is his. I ask then, when did they begin to be his? When he digested? or when he ate? or when he boiled? or when he brought them home? or when he picked them up? And ’tis plain, if the first gathering made them not his, nothing else could. That labour put a distinction between them and common. That added something to them more than Nature, the common mother of all, had done, and so they became his private right. And will any one say he had no right to those acorns or apples he thus appropriated because he had not the consent of all mankind to make them his? Was it a robbery thus to assume to himself what belonged to all in common? If such a consent as that was necessary, man had starved, notwithstanding the plenty God had given him. ... Thus, the grass my horse has bit, the turfs my servant has cut, and the ore I have digged in my place, where I have a right to them in common with others, become my property without the assignation or consent of any body. The labour that was mine, removing them out of that common state they were in, hath fixed my property in them.

By making an explicit consent of every commoner necessary to any one’s appropriating to himself any part of what is given in common, children or servants could not cut the meat which their father or master had provided for them in common without assigning to every one his peculiar part. Though the water running in the fountain be every one’s, yet who can doubt but that in the pitcher is his only who drew it out? His labour hath taken it out of the hands of Nature where it was common... and hath thereby appropriated it to himself.

Thus the law of reason makes the deer that Indian’s who killed it; ’tis allowed to be his goods who hath bestowed his labour upon it, though, before, it was the common right of every one. And amongst those who are counted the civilized part of mankind... this original law of nature for the beginning of property, in what was before common, still takes place, and by virtue thereof, what fish any one catches in the ocean, that great and still remaining common of mankind; or what ambergris any one takes up here is by the labour that removes it out of that common state nature left it in, made his property who takes that pains about it." - John Locke
 
You are saying we do have natural rights because you say we do. That doesn't make it true. Even the "law" saying we do doesn't make it true.

the law, the founding principles of america, the founders themselves, civilizations which had natural law and we ourselves followed after......says we do

according to you.. you saying we don't, means we don't.
 
Back
Top Bottom