• 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
Actually, I believe Texas V White established that succession is possible if the seceding state can obtain the permission of the rest of the states.

No permission slip required. We have all the legal grounds we need to make secession a reality, should we choose
 
While unlikely anytime too soon, it's not unthinkable that one day, Texas might vote to secede from the United States and re-establish itself as an independent nation.

If done in a peaceful and democratic manner...that is, if the people of Texas overwhelmingly voted to withdraw from the U.S. In a referendum similar to the one recently held in Scotland, would you support the right of Texas to go her own way?

No! It is because the Texas Energy conglometates would turn Texas into the World pollution capitol. Excepting that singular reason, it'd be a pleasure to get rid of Texas.
 
Texas has all these things. There are a few very vocal groups in Texas who simply whine about not getting what they want during elections, which is hilarious since they do a lot of crap in Texas that many people in the other states find absolutely stupid, abhorrent, or just shake their heads over. This tells me that they have plenty of self determination and those whining otherwise are more like little kids or teenagers with a mindset that if they didn't have their parents around, their lives would be so much better.

Maybe you just don't understand Texas. We used to be our own country. We fought and won our own war of independence against the Mexicans...the only state that can say as much. We're an independent lot.
 
SCOTUS couldnt have said it any better years ago.

They joined the perpetual Union, outside of revolution, they cannot UNILATERALLY secede.

Actually we can, question is would you handle the breakup with grace and dignity, or would you try to cling and beg
 
There is no Constitutional mechanism for secession so for Texas or any state to leave it's via a Constitutional amendment or a successful rebellion. Neither is happening in the foreseeable future.

A. Texas could simply vote to leave. Are you going to send troops in to Dallas? The American people would NEVER have the stomach for a bloody war against their own kin...and a number of southern states may even be sympathetic to our cause.

B. Texas does have a legal right to divide itself in to 5 states at any time. Is the U.S. Govt really going to accept 10 senators from Texas? Hell no, they'll kick us out first.

C. We can simply refuse to appoint any federal judges or hire any federal employees...simply letting the positions go unfilled. Then we can simply ignore federal law and that would be secession by default. See point A....us wouldn't really be able to do anything about it
 
SCOTUS couldnt have said it any better years ago.

They joined the perpetual Union, outside of revolution, they cannot UNILATERALLY secede.

So much for 'inalienable' rights, eh? You get one chance to sign them away and poof! they're gone.
 
Nope, that's not how secession or "federal" debt work

Oh but it is. You can't become an independent state as a "successor state" of an existing state and not assume your part of international obligations.
 
A. Texas could simply vote to leave. Are you going to send troops in to Dallas? The American people would NEVER have the stomach for a bloody war against their own kin...and a number of southern states may even be sympathetic to our cause.

B. Texas does have a legal right to divide itself in to 5 states at any time. Is the U.S. Govt really going to accept 10 senators from Texas? Hell no, they'll kick us out first.

C. We can simply refuse to appoint any federal judges or hire any federal employees...simply letting the positions go unfilled. Then we can simply ignore federal law and that would be secession by default. See point A....us wouldn't really be able to do anything about it

A - What is the legal basis for this? What provision in the Constitution gives any state the legal authority to leave? There is none. Texas can certainly vote to leave - the vote would not be legal and US could if it desired legally use force to keep Texas in the United States.

B - Article IV Section 3

New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.


C - Secession was tried once before. You really want to tempt fate again?
 
C - Secession was tried once before. You really want to tempt fate again?

Things might be different if the 49 other states basically say, "Fine, secede, and please don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out."
 
Not really that stupid of an idea, Texas has a balanced budget, and just about every natural resource a nation could be blessed with.

I only wish they would help get the country as a whole back on track.
 
Oh but it is. You can't become an independent state as a "successor state" of an existing state and not assume your part of international obligations.

Did the U.S. pay debt money to the crown of England after it declared independence?
 
Oh Dear Lord no.

We'd be conquered by Mexico within the first month. You have to remember that all of the US Armed Forces in our state would be moving out.

Texas has the wealth, the know-how, and the population to more than hold their own. Besides, we defeated the Mexicans once before.
 
Texas has the wealth, the know-how, and the population to more than hold their own. Besides, we defeated the Mexicans once before.

What currency would you use? And how much do you think it would be worth if you defaulted on your share of the US national debt? Ask Argentina and Greece how default, or the threat of it, affects your economy.
 
So much for 'inalienable' rights, eh? You get one chance to sign them away and poof! they're gone.

Unilateral secession through voting is not an inalienable right. Revolution is.

Perhaps read up on American laws before commenting on them? Although to be fair, Europeans generally are perplexed by such superior forms of governing.
 
Y'know, that "America, Hell Yeah!" sort of thing.

Go to Texas sometime. You'll see more Texas flags flying than American flags, and that's emblematic.

I think a parallel can be made between Texas and Scotland in some respects. While the majority of Texans probably would like to remain in the U.S. For the time being, there is that independent streak as well...
 
Texas has the wealth, the know-how, and the population to more than hold their own. Besides, we defeated the Mexicans once before.

Texas does not. Their would be A LOT of dependance upon the United States.

At that point, all the US would have to do is embargo Texas completely until theyre forced to rejoin or suffer heavy losses.
 
Things might be different if the 49 other states basically say, "Fine, secede, and please don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out."

That would be the only legal way - by amending the Constitution.
 
What currency would you use? And how much do you think it would be worth if you defaulted on your share of the US national debt? Ask Argentina and Greece how default, or the threat of it, affects your economy.

I think Texas would be able to cope with that at least as well as an independent Scotland.
 
A - What is the legal basis for this? What provision in the Constitution gives any state the legal authority to leave? There is none. Texas can certainly vote to leave - the vote would not be legal and US could if it desired legally use force to keep Texas in the United States.

B - Article IV Section 3




C - Secession was tried once before. You really want to tempt fate again?

sorry you are not correct

in constitutional law...all powers in the constitution are federal..all other POWERS not delegated in the constitution are state, since there is no delegated powers to keep states in the union per the constitution, the power of leaving the union would be a state power.

every state constitution in it states that the people have the right to alter of abolish the government they have.

again there is no power per the constitution granted to the federal government to stop a state from leaving the union.

article 4 section 3 deals with creating a state inside a state, as in the case of West Virginia

May31st 1787..at the constitutional convention:A POWER WAS PROPOSED TO BE GRANTED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT...that power is the power for the federal government to preserve the harmony of the union..........that power was DENIED!

HERE IS THE TEXT OF THE CONVENTION.:

The other clauses [FN10] giving powers necessary to preserve harmony among the States to negative all State laws contravening in the opinion of the Nat. Leg. the articles of union, down to the last clause, (the words "or any treaties subsisting under the authority of the Union," being added after the words "contravening &c. the articles of the Union," on motion of Dr. FRANKLIN) were agreed to witht. debate or dissent. The last clause of Resolution 6. [FN11] authorizing an exertion of the force of the whole agst. a delinquent State came next into consideration.

Mr. MADISON, observed that the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not individually. -A union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force agst. a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound. He hoped that such a system would be framed as might render this recourse [FN12] unnecessary, and moved that the clause be postponed. This motion was agreed to nem. con.

The Committee then rose & the House

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

William Rawle was George Washington's DA for the state of PENN

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.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...s/a4_4s13.html

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.

Article 4, Section 4: William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States 295--304, 305--7 1829 (2d ed.)
 
Back
Top Bottom