• 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
wishful thinking on your part.:2razz:

but so i can drive the point home, !

natural law recognized by u.s. federal law.

AN ACT to provide for the division of Dakota into two States and to enable the people of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington to form constitutions and State governments and to be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and to make donations of public lands to such States.

(Approved February 22, 1889.) [25 U.S. Statutes at Large, c 180 p 676.]

[President's proclamation declaring Washington a state: 26 St. at Large, Proclamations, p 10, Nov. 11, 1889.]

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the inhabitants of all that part of the area of the United States now constituting the Territories of Dakota, Montana, and Washington, as at present described, may become the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington, respectively, as hereinafter provided.


SEC. 4. That the delegates to the conventions elected as provided for in this act shall meet at the seat of government of each of said Territories, except the delegates elected in South Dakota, who shall meet at the city of Sioux Falls, on the fourth day of July, eighteen hundred and eighty-nine, and, after organization, shall declare, on behalf of the people of said proposed States, that they adopt the Constitution of the United States; whereupon the said conventions shall be, and are hereby, authorized to form constitutions and States governments for said proposed states, respectively. The constitutions shall be republican in form, and make no distinction in civil or political rights on account of race or color, except as to Indians not taxed, and not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the of Declaration of Independence. And said conventions shall provide, by ordinances irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of said States:

First. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured and that no inhabitant of said States shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship


State History Enabling Act

I don't care what you post. It's not relevant to law - only an acknowledgment of our founder's divorce from England.
 
I don't care what you post. It's not relevant to law - only an acknowledgment of our founder's divorce from England.

:lamo....enabling act used in relation to the formation of a new U.S. state which legislation passed by Congress authorizing the people of a territory to frame a constitution, this act also lays down the requirements that must be met as a prerequisite to statehood.

england...:lamo
 
:lamo....enabling act used in relation to the formation of a new U.S. state which legislation passed by Congress authorizing the people of a territory to frame a constitution, this act also lays down the requirements that must be met as a prerequisite to statehood.

england...:lamo

It's a historical acknowledge...so what? No way to prove some state didn't like the principles of the DOI. It'd be much easy to prove that they violated the Constitution.

YAWN!
 
lost you are....

if you had paid attention my conversation had to do with natural rights.

meaning just because you need food- water- shelter does not mean you can take it from other people, because you claim you have a natural right to it.....that was the conversation......but you failed in understanding that

um why cant you and why would that claim of a natural right be anything but correct?
 
unless rights are made up then there whatever you mold them into

then tell me, if people create rights when why in the 200 yrs of existence in america, is there no right to food water and shelter....because the USSC have never recognized such a thing.

you would think if people create their rights they would have done this since it is so basic, and since people create their own rights then that means they have to be put down in law,

thats the thing here...you say people create rights........ok, where is this creation where is it written down.

in natural law, it is unwritten law...... since you want to say man makes his own rights...then that has to be written...can you provide a link a rights creation via our government.
 
then tell me, if people create rights when why in the 200 yrs of existence in america, is there no right to food water and shelter....because the USSC have never recognized such a thing.

you would think if people create their rights they would have done this since it is so basic, and since people create their own rights then that means they have to be put down in law,

thats the thing here...you say people create rights........ok, where is this creation where is it written down.

in natural law, it is unwritten law...... since you want to say man makes his own rights...then that has to be written...can you provide a link a rights creation via our government.

why do the rights that you say don't have to be recognized have to be recognized?
 
then tell me, if people create rights when why in the 200 yrs of existence in america, is there no right to food water and shelter....because the USSC have never recognized such a thing.

you would think if people create their rights they would have done this since it is so basic, and since people create their own rights then that means they have to be put down in law,

thats the thing here...you say people create rights........ok, where is this creation where is it written down.

in natural law, it is unwritten law...... since you want to say man makes his own rights...then that has to be written...can you provide a link a rights creation via our government.
The Constitution says that you are wrong. Amendment 9 clearly says that there are enumerated rights in the Constitution. The first eight amendments are a list of enumerated rights. Non-enumerated constitutional rights are generally what you think as being natural rights. In order for you to claim a non-enumerated constitutional right the concept must come from a human mind. These rights dont just pop out of thin air and are agreed on by everyone as if it was printed at birth in their minds. If you go before a court and claim something is a natural right you are going to need to prove that it is a non-enumerated constitutional right. The end result will indeed be man made.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
 
Once again, are those that voted 'no' prepared to keep Texas in the U.S. by force, if they voted to leave?

I am not a Texan, but I would NEVER take up arms to force a state to stay in America if most of that's state's citizens voted to leave.
 
The Constitution says that you are wrong. Amendment 9 clearly says that there are enumerated rights in the Constitution. The first eight amendments are a list of enumerated rights. Non-enumerated constitutional rights are generally what you think as being natural rights. In order for you to claim a non-enumerated constitutional right the concept must come from a human mind. These rights dont just pop out of thin air and are agreed on by everyone as if it was printed at birth in their minds. If you go before a court and claim something is a natural right you are going to need to prove that it is a non-enumerated constitutional right. The end result will indeed be man made.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

while you are correct that rights which are not enumerated usually fall under the 9th,

man made means.... positive law..rights are not positive law created by statute.

rights are unwritten law, because they are not positive law, again like the right to privacy which is not an enumerated right in the constitution, the USSC recognized it as a natural right of the people, the USSC adjudicates the law ......they don't make law

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.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/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.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/unwritten-law/
 
Last edited:
while you are correct that rights which are not enumerated usually fall under the 9th,

man made means.... positive law..rights are not positive law created by statute.

rights are unwritten law, because they are not positive law, again like the right to privacy which is not an enumerated right in the constitution, the USSC recognized it as a natural right of the people, the USSC adjudicates the law ......they don't make law

Unwritten Law


[a bunch of copy and pasted crap]
Positive law bawhahaha never mentioned it so that accusation has zero to do with anything that I just said in the post that you were supposedly replying too.


The 9th Amendment affirms that there are enumerated rights in the Constitution.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
 
Positive law bawhahaha never mentioned it so that accusation has zero to do with anything that I just said in the post that you were supposedly replying too.


The 9th Amendment affirms that there are enumerated rights in the Constitution.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

are you trying to saying enumeration is the granting of rights?

[a bunch of copy and pasted crap]<------translation: i don't like this legal stuff
 
Last edited:
are you trying to saying enumeration is the granting of rights?

[a bunch of copy and pasted crap]<------translation: i don't like this legal stuff

I am saying that there are actually some rights that are enumerated in the US Constitution. I have no problem with legal content, but you went off on a tangent that wasnt at all a reply to my post. In fact you made some creative assumptions.
 
I am saying that there are actually some rights that are enumerated in the US Constitution. I have no problem with legal content, but you went off on a tangent that wasnt at all a reply to my post. In fact you made some creative assumptions.

i did not understand you first post that is correct...and no i did not go off, you would like for me to though.

which is why i came back with a question.

yes there are rights which are enumerated in the constitution, but they are only recognized by the law and not made by law.
 
i did not understand you first post that is correct...and no i did not go off, you would like for me to though.

which is why i came back with a question.

yes there are rights which are enumerated in the constitution, but they are only recognized by the law and not made by law.

Yea and Texas (remember Texas?) cannot secede from the Constitution without violating the 14th Amendment. The act of a State seceding from the United States of America is indeed declaring that the State wants to trash the US Constitution. And a State cannot trash the Constitution without violating the 14th.
 
Yea and Texas (remember Texas?) cannot secede from the Constitution without violating the 14th Amendment. The act of a State seceding from the United States of America is indeed declaring that the State wants to trash the US Constitution. And a State cannot trash the Constitution without violating the 14th.
:confused:......

WILL YOU POINT TO A THE SPECIFIC PLACE OF THE 14TH WHICH SAYS WHAT YOU ARE MAKING CLAIMS OF .
 
:confused:......

WILL YOU POINT TO A THE SPECIFIC PLACE OF THE 14TH WHICH SAYS WHAT YOU ARE MAKING CLAIMS OF .

Isnt it obvious?

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Every American in Texas has the right to be a citizen of the USA and all the protections that relationship creates. State secession would mean that every American in that State would be having their 14th Amendment rights violated. The act of a State seceding is the act of the State saying that they are Anti-American. That States government doesnt want to affiliated with American patriotism. The State would destroy every element of Americanism. The protections that the US Constitution provides would be ignored by the rogue State. Without those protections anything goes including the States Constitution. All checks and balances are off the table. I seriously doubt that any REAL AMERICAN would agree to give up the protections of the US Constitution. And the 14th will give the Federal Government its power to stop any State from seceding.
 
Isnt it obvious?

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Every American in Texas has the right to be a citizen of the USA and all the protections that relationship creates. State secession would mean that every American in that State would be having their 14th Amendment rights violated. The act of a State seceding is the act of the State saying that they are Anti-American. That States government doesnt want to affiliated with American patriotism. The State would destroy every element of Americanism. The protections that the US Constitution provides would be ignored by the rogue State. Without those protections anything goes including the States Constitution. All checks and balances are off the table. I seriously doubt that any REAL AMERICAN would agree to give up the protections of the US Constitution. And the 14th will give the Federal Government its power to stop any State from seceding.

can you please provide a federal law or constitutional law, which grants the federal government authority over people on the issue of secession.

can you please provide where are rights are granted by the 14th
 
can you please provide a federal law or constitutional law, which grants the federal government authority over people on the issue of secession.

can you please provide where are rights are granted by the 14th
Its sad to watch you try and ignore a Constitutional Amendment as if it doesnt exist. Then throw a strawman argument at me as if I will just take up your made up position as my own.

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 
Its sad to watch you try and ignore a Constitutional Amendment as if it doesnt exist. Then throw a strawman argument at me as if I will just take up your made up position as my own.

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

in order for government to act it must have law to act on ,this says nothing of what you are eluding to.


side note:
did you know the 14th amendment was actually created for slaves and not whites, making them federal subjects which this was confirmed in 1873 in the slauhterhouse case, it was later the USSC applied this clause to the rest of the population.
 
in order for government to act it must have law to act on ,this says nothing of what you are eluding to.
What am I eluding too?


side note:
did you know the 14th amendment was actually created for slaves and not whites, making them federal subjects which this was confirmed in 1873 in the slauhterhouse case, it was later the USSC applied this clause to the rest of the population.

Side note: lol
 
What am I eluding too?

you tell me.... if my understanding of what you are eluding to is wrong....

if you saying that people fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government before they cannot leave the union?


Side note: lol

fact!
 
Back
Top Bottom