• 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
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.

Well sure that is how you feel but the voters and the convention may feel entirely different about rights. You were the one standing behind that convention and a vote for secession as being infallible. If the State of Texas holds a convention or a vote on secession the end result is going to be that a majority (vote) or a minority (convention) is going to dictate secession. Just because a convention created this country isnt a excuse for a convention to dictate their wants onto the rest of us. Such a convention or a vote is designed to act outside of the law of the land a circumnavigation the US Constitution. But then its all a mute point since no State even remotely wants to secede and nor can a State secede without violating the 14th Amendment.
 
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]

There is no such thing as 'unwritten law' in the United States. You can make innumerable arguments to a court on the basis of rights, customs, or practice that may be considered but the moment they are accepted they become part of our common law or federal law, the moment they aren't they become irrelevant.
 
I agree... which is part of why Texas is never leaving the Union. But it would be hilarious to send troops in to arrest the errant legislator or militiamen who thinks differently.

i don't see it happening.

the u.s.federal government would cut its own throat by going to a state and arresting the politicians the people have elected.

secession is a act by the people not by government alone
 
There is no such thing as 'unwritten law' in the United States. You can make innumerable arguments to a court on the basis of rights, customs, or practice that may be considered but the moment they are accepted they become part of our common law or federal law, the moment they aren't they become irrelevant.

really, what do you think rights are?

did the congress grant you are right to free speech...among others....where are they granted at?
 
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]

That is a verbatim copy paste from wikipedia. What point are you trying to make?
 
That is a verbatim copy paste from wikipedia. What point are you trying to make?

are the links from wikipedia?


n Meyer v. Nebraska,1 the Court invalidated a state law which prohibited foreign language instruction for school children because the law did not “promote” education but rather “arbitrarily and unreasonably” interfered with “the natural duty of the parent to give his children education suitable to their station in life...” 2 The court chastened the legislature for attempting “materially to interfere� with the power of parents to control the education of their own.” 3 This decision clearly affirmed that the Constitution protects the preferences of the parent in education over those of the State. In the same decision, 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

http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000075.asp


the ACLU!

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
 
Last edited:
really, what do you think rights are?

did the congress grant you are right to free speech...among others....where are they granted at?

Yes of course they did. Without these legal protections and the might of society to guard me my right to free speech would be limited by my own strength to sustain it. The only right we all have is to do our utmost to survive, everything else flows from the bounty we gain by coming together to form civilized society.
 
i don't see it happening.

the u.s.federal government would cut its own throat by going to a state and arresting the politicians the people have elected.

secession is a act by the people not by government alone

Are you serious? We lit Georgia on fire over secession and you think the Federal Government would "cut its own throat" by arresting people who attempt secession/rebellion?
 
yes of course they did. Without these legal protections and the might of society to guard me my right to free speech would be limited by my own strength to sustain it. The only right we all have is to do our utmost to survive, everything else flows from the bounty we gain by coming together to form civilized society.

where are these rights granted at?


Show me!
 
are the links from wikipedia?


n Meyer v. Nebraska,1 the Court invalidated a state law which prohibited foreign language instruction for school children because the law did not “promote” education but rather “arbitrarily and unreasonably” interfered with “the natural duty of the parent to give his children education suitable to their station in life...” 2 The court chastened the legislature for attempting “materially to interfere� with the power of parents to control the education of their own.” 3 This decision clearly affirmed that the Constitution protects the preferences of the parent in education over those of the State. In the same decision, 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


the ACLU!

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

What is the point here? That the Supreme Court's role is to discern what is and what is not in accord with the Constitution?
 
are you serious? We lit georgia on fire over secession and you think the federal government would "cut its own throat" by arresting people who attempt secession/rebellion?

this is not 1861....if the federal government came into a state and locked it down arrested people/killed people...it would be a battle cry across the union against the federal government.
 
Last edited:
what is the point here? That the supreme court's role is to discern what is and what is not in accord with the constitution?

the point is... The courts recognizes rights.....the court is not a law making body.

The right to privacy which the court recognized, was not created by the congress via law.

Rights are not created by law

again...where are rights granted to you......show me!
 
where are these rights granted at?


Show me!

In the Constitution, the First Amendment, incorporated in part by the 14th Amendment, and further incorporated by Supreme Court decisions. These rights that we have bestowed upon ourselves exist only as long as they are respected within the legal order and so long as they are protected by that order. Without that we only have as many rights as we can sustain by our own strength or ability. A weak man soon discovers that he has few rights.
 
this is not 1861....if the federal government came into astate and locked it down arrested people/killed people...it would be a battle cry across the union. Against the federal government.

Not if that state was plotting to secede, lol. If it was we'd crush whoever took it as a 'battle cry'. Keep dreaming.
 
In the Constitution, the First Amendment, incorporated in part by the 14th Amendment, and further incorporated by Supreme Court decisions. These rights that we have bestowed upon ourselves exist only as long as they are respected within the legal order and so long as they are protected by that order. Without that we only have as many rights as we can sustain by our own strength or ability. A weak man soon discovers that he has few rights.

wrong!

the 14th amendment states that state governments will not bridge the privilege and immunities and the rights of people, by granting congress the power to write federal legislation...to prohibit such action by a state.
 
the point is... The courts recognizes rights.....the court is not a law making body.

The right to privacy which the court recognized, was not created by the congress via law.

Rights are not created by law

again...where are rights granted to you......show me!

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.
 
Not if that state was plotting to secede, lol. If it was we'd crush whoever took it as a 'battle cry'. Keep dreaming.

oh you think people in in northern states are not going to become angry.

the first time, the federal government locks people of a state up or kills people of states..........will signal the beginning of the end of the federal government
 
wrong!

the 14th amendment states that state governments will not bridge the privilege and immunities and the rights of people, by granting congress the power to write federal legislation...to prohibit such action by a state.

The 14th Amendment began the process of incorporating the Bill of Rights onto the states, the incorporation doctrine springs in large part from the Due Process clauses. This is Con Law 101.
 
oh you think people in in northern states are not going to become angry.

the first time, the federal government locks people of a state up or kills people of states..........will signal the beginning of the end of the federal government

No. We hate secession and treason. Like most people.
 
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.

if the court recognizes rights, then rights are not created by law......

again where are rights granted....show me!
 
if the court recognizes rights, then rights are not created by law......

again where are rights granted....show me!

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.
 
Are you serious? We lit Georgia on fire over secession and you think the Federal Government would "cut its own throat" by arresting people who attempt secession/rebellion?

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom