• 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
ernst barkmann said:
are you saying because of the 14th amendment this grants congress power over the people and therefore they cannot act without the approval of congress...like secession.
Click to expand...

No. I am saying the a State cannot take the protections afforded by the Constitution away from American citizens. Remember we are residents of the State that we live in right now, and citizens of the USA.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
No. I am saying the a State cannot take the protections afforded by the Constitution away from American citizens. Remember we are residents of the State that we live in right now, and citizens of the USA.
Click to expand...

can you explain why the federal government via law says that states can alter or abolish their governments.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
You are going to need to be more specific.
Click to expand...

when states joined the union, the u.s. federal government Declared via u.s. enabling laws, that states when they entered the union, their state constitutions were in no way repugnat to the u.s constitution or the principles of the declaration of independence.

some state constitutions have in them the right of the people to alter of abolish their government, while others state that all political power of the state is inherent in the people.

the u.s. government by creating those laws said.....your right to alter or abolish your state government, is within the federal constitution and the DOI, and not repugnant..THEREFORE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO SAY THAT ALTERING OR ABOLISHING A STATE GOVERNMENT IS OUTSIDE OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
 
ernst barkmann said:
when states joined the union, the u.s. federal government Declared via u.s. enabling laws, that states when they entered the union, their state constitutions were in no way repugnat to the u.s constitution or the principles of the declaration of independence.

some state constitutions have in them the right of the people to alter of abolish their government, while others state that all political power of the state is inherent in the people.

the u.s. government by creating those laws said.....your right to alter or abolish your state government, is within the federal constitution and the DOI, and not repugnant..THEREFORE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO SAY THAT ALTERING OR ABOLISHING A STATE GOVERNMENT IS OUTSIDE OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
Click to expand...

Even if that was true (which it isnt) that still doesnt mean that a State can act against the US Constitution.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Even if that was true (which it isnt) that still doesnt mean that a State can act against the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

it is true, go out and read state constitutions, and read the enabling laws for them....

it states they can alter their government or abolish it......if they do that how can it be part of the union.
 
ernst barkmann said:
it is true, go out and read state constitutions, and read the enabling laws for them....

it states they can alter their government or abolish it......if they do that how can it be part of the union.
Click to expand...

A State cannot just pretend like the US Constitution isnt the law of the land.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
A State cannot just pretend like the US Constitution isnt the law of the land.
Click to expand...

did not say it could, but the federal government by law has already stated by federal law that a state constitution meets muster, and nothing in said state constutution is repugnant to the federal constitution.

so if the poeople are exercising a right recognized via that constitution, how can the federal government says its an unconstitutional action, if the federal government has already said such action is not... by law?
 
ernst barkmann said:
did not say it could, but the federal government by law has already stated by federal law that a state constitution meets muster, and nothing in said state constutution is repugnant to the federal constitution.

so if the poeople are exercising a right recognized via that constitution, how can the federal government says its an unconstitutional action, if the federal government has already said such action is not... by law?
Click to expand...
Leaving the Union is extremely repugnant to the US Constitution.
 
DA60 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am prepared to bear arms against those that wish to take over the US.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
No. I am saying the a State cannot take the protections afforded by the Constitution away from American citizens. Remember we are residents of the State that we live in right now, and citizens of the USA.
Click to expand...

Now, there's an interesting point. If a state were to secede from the union, then the inhabitants of said state would lose the Constitutionally guaranteed right of citizenship by birth.

Maybe, then, the residents would have to be granted dual citizenship.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Leaving the Union is extremely repugnant to the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

the federal government has said via law, that altering or abolishing a state government is not repugnant to the federal constitution, because it is a right of the people.

therefore it is is a right of the people and the federal government by law has say so, then how can a state be part of the union.....?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Now, there's an interesting point. If a state were to secede from the union, then the inhabitants of said state would lose the Constitutionally guaranteed right of citizenship by birth.

Maybe, then, the residents would have to be granted dual citizenship.
Click to expand...

The citizens of a State that seceded and were a new country would be under the jurisdiction of said new country. The US Constitution has no jurisdiction in other countries.
The new country could decide to do anything they wanted and the US government could do nothing about it. Including striping the rights of dual citizenship residents. The US Government would have to act in behalf of her citizens that lost their rights and do its duty to protect the rights of those US citizens that were victims of a rogue State government.

What is interesting about the proponents of State secession is the complete lack of understanding that the people of any State in this here Union move around a lot. There doesnt really exist a permanent citizenry of any State. The properties in each State is intertwined by owners from different States. People have family in several States. My family line envelopes several States. Secessionists are too naive to realize that every State is inhabited by people from other States. I was born in Washington State, raised in Oregon and now live in New Mexico. But along the way I lived in several other States.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
The citizens of a State that seceded and were a new country would be under the jurisdiction of said new country. The US Constitution has no jurisdiction in other countries.
The new country could decide to do anything they wanted and the US government could do nothing about it. Including striping the rights of dual citizenship residents. The US Government would have to act in behalf of her citizens that lost their rights and do its duty to protect the rights of those US citizens that were victims of a rogue State government.

What is interesting about the proponents of State secession is the complete lack of understanding that the people of any State in this here Union move around a lot. There doesnt really exist a permanent citizenry of any State. The properties in each State is intertwined by owners from different States. People have family in several States. My family line envelopes several States. Secessionists are too naive to realize that every State is inhabited by people from other States. I was born in Washington State, raised in Oregon and now live in New Mexico. But along the way I lived in several other States.
Click to expand...

if a state were to leave the union it would operate under its constitution, which has the same rights which are recognized by the federal constitution.
 
ernst barkmann said:
the federal government has said via law, that altering or abolishing a state government is not repugnant to the federal constitution, because it is a right of the people.
Click to expand...
What law would that be?

therefore it is is a right of the people and the federal government by law has say so, then how can a state be part of the union.....?
Click to expand...
Have you ever heard of this document called the US Constitution? The US Constitution is the Union.
 
ernst barkmann said:
if a state were to leave the union it would operate under its constitution, which has the same rights which are recognized by the federal constitution.
Click to expand...

There is no guarantee that would be the case. there would be no legality at that point o compel the State to have anything near the US Constitution. Nor would there be any checks or balances that stopped the State government from becoming a outright dictatorship. And if we look at those that are promoting the notion of State secession we can bet that a dictatorship is what they have in mind.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
What law would that be?

Have you ever heard of this document called the US Constitution? The US Constitution is the Union.
Click to expand...

u.s enabling law.

how can the federal government say a the people of a state in seccedding was violating constitutional law, when it said before via an enabling law, that what people do concerning their state.. is not repugnant to the constitution
 
FreedomFromAll said:
There is no guarantee that would be the case. there would be no legality at that point o compel the State to have anything near the US Constitution. Nor would there be any checks or balances that stopped the State government from becoming a outright dictatorship. And if we look at those that are promoting the notion of State secession we can bet that a dictatorship is what they have in mind.
Click to expand...

since a state constitution is already in place its not like a state would get rid of it, only alter it...in connection with the federal government.
 
I love Texas. Born and raised there. "Texas born and Texas bred. When I die I will be Texas dead."

But let's be honest here. Texas is known for, (and apparently proud of,) their reputation for talking ****.

Bigger skies, prettier women, bigger hats, bigger cattle. You know, bigger, better....everything. :roll:

Face it. To hear most Texan's talk, their **** smells like magnolia blossoms.

And they are proud bunch you dare not dispute as they are NEVER wrong about anything. A kind word about Obama can get your bones broke. "Long live free speech pardner!" Unless, of course, they don't agree with what you say.

All this "secede" bull **** talk has been going on since I can remember. Don't mean doodly-squat. Much like most everthing else Texan's believe. It has nothing to do with world reality, just Texas "reality." :lamo

Kinda like when Pecos Bill threw his lasso around that Texas Twister (tornado.) Yeee-hawww!!!!!

Generally speaking, Texan's may be somewhat delusional according with world standards of what constitutes reality, but it falls right in line with their "Lone Star State" attitude. I think it's cutesy and harmless.

Don't mess with Texas.
 
ernst barkmann said:
u.s enabling law.
Click to expand...
if you are going to site a reference you need to actually be specific.

how can the federal government say a the people of a state in seccedding was violating constitutional law, when it said before via an enabling law, that what people do concerning their state.. is not repugnant to the constitution
Click to expand...
You are making a assumption there.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
if you are going to site a reference you need to actually be specific.

You are making a assumption there.
Click to expand...

i cited u.s.enabling law thats what it is called "enabling law" for the u.s.

the term was used in relation to the formation of a new U.S. state; i.e., 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. These acts were usually titled "An Enabling Act for a State

the requirements of an enabling law are: the newly formed constitution shall not be repugnant to the federal contitituion or the principles of the declaration of independence

so if my constitution states i can alter or abolish my government, and the federal government has granted the state to enter the union, then altering or abolishing my state government does not violate constitutional law or any federal law because the federal government said so when they allowed the state into the union.
 
ernst barkmann said:
i cited u.s.enabling law thats what it is called "enabling law" for the u.s.

the term was used in relation to the formation of a new U.S. state; i.e., 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. These acts were usually titled "An Enabling Act for a State

the requirements of an enabling law are: the newly formed constitution shall not be repugnant to the federal contitituion or the principles of the declaration of independence

so if my constitution states i can alter or abolish my government, and the federal government has granted the state to enter the union, then altering or abolishing my state government does not violate constitutional law or any federal law because the federal government said so when they allowed the state into the union.
Click to expand...

What State Constitutions declare that they can abolish their State government?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom