• 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
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.
A state seceding from the union could limit migration from one state to another, but then, maybe not. According to the fourteenth amendment, anyone born within the United States has US citizenship. Since the current inhabitants of the state what seceded would have been born in the US (most of them, anyway, not the new immigrants or illegals) they would automatically be US citizens. Therefore, the state that seceded would be in violation of the rights of its citizens unless it did grant dual citizenship.

Perhaps, now being an independent nation, it could later act to strip that dual citizenship from its residents, but that would likely foment a rebellion.

All of this is just academic, of course, but an interesting bit of speculation.
 
A state seceding from the union could limit migration from one state to another, but then, maybe not. According to the fourteenth amendment, anyone born within the United States has US citizenship. Since the current inhabitants of the state what seceded would have been born in the US (most of them, anyway, not the new immigrants or illegals) they would automatically be US citizens. Therefore, the state that seceded would be in violation of the rights of its citizens unless it did grant dual citizenship.

Perhaps, now being an independent nation, it could later act to strip that dual citizenship from its residents, but that would likely foment a rebellion.

All of this is just academic, of course, but an interesting bit of speculation.

Again that dual citizenship doesnt solve anything legally. The US citizens that were caught in a rogue State governments jurisdiction would most likely start their own rebellion and get lots of add from the US government in the form of the US army. They would have the law of the land on their side. Of course you are right this is all just academic since the politicians in involved at the time of the attempted secession would be arrested on the spot in a massive federal sting. I suspect they would be arrested before they could declare their secession. No one actually believes that secession is legal except a small minority of radicals.
 
Actually, I voted that Texas should indeed be allowed to secede if it votes in a democratic referendum free from corrupt/malign influence... But, only if the federal government agrees to the referendum.

You cite Scotland as an example -- the Westminster government agreed to honour the outcome of the referendum, which made it legitimate. Otherwise it would've been a bunch of angry people ranting about not liking England.

The same with Texas -- if the US government says, "Texas, you consider yourself a people and we do too, so we'll honour a referendum on whether you want to remain a part of this union." If that were to happen, then I'd be all for it. Otherwise, however, it would be rebellion, and if I'm not mistaken, there was a war about 150 years ago in the US about precisely this issue.

Just to rabble-rouse, I feel the need to mention how quickly and embarrassingly Texas surrendered in the American Civil War, and also how poorly it performed. ;)
 
Actually, I voted that Texas should indeed be allowed to secede if it votes in a democratic referendum free from corrupt/malign influence... But, only if the federal government agrees to the referendum.

You cite Scotland as an example -- the Westminster government agreed to honour the outcome of the referendum, which made it legitimate. Otherwise it would've been a bunch of angry people ranting about not liking England.

The same with Texas -- if the US government says, "Texas, you consider yourself a people and we do too, so we'll honour a referendum on whether you want to remain a part of this union." If that were to happen, then I'd be all for it. Otherwise, however, it would be rebellion, and if I'm not mistaken, there was a war about 150 years ago in the US about precisely this issue.

Just to rabble-rouse, I feel the need to mention how quickly and embarrassingly Texas surrendered in the American Civil War, and also how poorly it performed. ;)
:doh...why do people post things they know nothing about?
 
:doh...why do people post things they know nothing about?

Indeed. Lee surrendered on April 9th. Jefferson Davis was captured on May 9th. The Battle of Palmito Ranch was on May 12th in Texas. The Union lost that battle.

If you're going to rabble-rouse about the Civil War, talk about the evil of slavery, because it was. Don't lie about historical facts.
 
Indeed. Lee surrendered on April 9th. Jefferson Davis was captured on May 9th. The Battle of Palmito Ranch was on May 12th in Texas. The Union lost that battle.

If you're going to rabble-rouse about the Civil War, talk about the evil of slavery, because it was. Don't lie about historical facts.

what am i lying about, since i am quoting someone on what they said....
 
To those that answered 'no'...

...what if 90+% of Texans AND 51% of Americans from the other states said they wanted Texas to be able to leave.

Would you still vote 'no'.


And if you would still vote no...what if 90+% of both Texans and voting Americans wanted to allow Texas to leave? Would you still vote 'no'?
 
what am i lying about, since i am quoting someone on what they said....

What? I was agreeing with you, or at least that's what I had in mind.

Yea, you quoted someone who said something incorrect.
 
I thought that this question was decided by the American Civil War. Did not that bloodiest of all American conflicts determine that no state in the Union has the right to unilaterally sever its membership in that Union? It seems to me, then, that Texas possesses no right to secede. One cannot support a right that does not exist.
 
I thought that this question was decided by the American Civil War. Did not that bloodiest of all American conflicts determine that no state in the Union has the right to unilaterally sever its membership in that Union? It seems to me, then, that Texas possesses no right to secede. One cannot support a right that does not exist.

If course you are right and have hit the nail upon its firm head.

Just like the annual weather shifts have four main seasons in most of the nation- so does the discussion in which somebody from the right tries to bring up secession again and justify it. You just came in at the end of the latest. When this one dies - a few weeks will past and somebody - probably a libertarian - will resurrect it, gussy it up trying to find a new angle making it attractive - and we get to do it all over again. Fun huh?
 
I thought that this question was decided by the American Civil War. Did not that bloodiest of all American conflicts determine that no state in the Union has the right to unilaterally sever its membership in that Union? It seems to me, then, that Texas possesses no right to secede. One cannot support a right that does not exist.

Declaration of independence- -That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


TEXAS CONSTITUTION:

Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.
 
Declaration of independence- -That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


TEXAS CONSTITUTION:

Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.

I have always found it a bit more than ironic that people who pretend follow an ersatz ideology based on liberty are usually the ones screaming the loudest in these discussions to justify the preservation of a system of legal slavery which denies others the basic rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of their happiness in the same document the use to justify the defense of the south. But then you realize that all the talk about freedom and liberty is just lipstick on a very ugly pig and its all just bs to begin with for them.
 
No. Secession is unconstitutional. They can't
 
There are flaws in your argument(s). First, the Declaration of Independence is not the governing instrument of the U.S., the Constitution is. Secondly, when the Declaration refers to the right of the people to alter or abolish a government, I do not believe that it refers to a disaffected minority of the people, but to a majority. Thirdly, the Texas constitution can only refer to the people's right to alter, reform, or abolish the government of Texas. The constitution of the state of Texas, or any other state for that matter, can have no power to alter, reform, or abolish that state's relation to the federal government since the U. S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
 
There are flaws in your argument(s). First, the Declaration of Independence is not the governing instrument of the U.S., the Constitution is. Secondly, when the Declaration refers to the right of the people to alter or abolish a government, I do not believe that it refers to a disaffected minority of the people, but to a majority. Thirdly, the Texas constitution can only refer to the people's right to alter, reform, or abolish the government of Texas. The constitution of the state of Texas, or any other state for that matter, can have no power to alter, reform, or abolish that state's relation to the federal government since the U. S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land.


the declaration of independence is an organic law of the u.s....... which is its foundation.

the right refers to "the people"

that is correct the state constitution says the people have a right to alter or abolish their government, which means the form of government which they currently have in connection to the federal government, can be altered or abolished .

if the people of Texas were to abolish and create a monarchy or pure democracy,which is their right .... it would be inconsistent with the constitution, and therefore the state would have to be expunged from the union.

false....there are states that entered the union, that the federal government recognized their constitution when they entered the union that stated that the people have the right to alter or abolish, which the u.s. federal government DECLARED by [u.s. enabling laws], that thisthose state constitutions were not repugnant to the federal constitution or the principles of the delectation of independence.

it may also be added that the founding fathers, denied the federal government power to preserve the union.....constitutional convention notes may31st 1787
 
To those that answered 'no'...

...what if 90+% of Texans AND 51% of Americans from the other states said they wanted Texas to be able to leave.

Would you still vote 'no'.


And if you would still vote no...what if 90+% of both Texans and voting Americans wanted to allow Texas to leave? Would you still vote 'no'?

Well thats a mighty big what if, but yea I would still vote no.
 
Well thats a mighty big what if, but yea I would still vote no.

Well, thanks for answering.

So basically, you don't much care about the will of the people.

Noted.

Well, I do.


Btw, how would you plan to keep them in America if they just left? By force? By war? You are prepared to kill them rather then let them do what it is they overwhelmingly voted to do?
 
Last edited:
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?

Such an event will signal the dissolution of the US.
 
Well, thanks for answering.

So basically, you don't much care about the will of the people.

Noted.

Well, I do.


Btw, how would you plan to keep them in America if they just left? By force? By war? You are prepared to kill them rather then let them do what it is they overwhelmingly voted to do?

I do care about the will of the people. But I dont believe in a direct democracy. The framers of the Constitution were very against letting the majority dictate to the minority and vice versa. That is why they designed a Republican form of government.

I am prepared to bear arms against those that try to destroy the Constitution.
 
What is the point of the Constitution if no one can defend it?

a state seceding, is not threating the constitution.

what is the constitution?.....it is a document, which creates the structure of the federal government, delegates them few powers, and also places restrictions on that federal government.

all other powers which exist [not delegated] remain the powers of the states as they did before the constitution.


the states created the constitution

the constitution created the federal government.

the states are the guardian of the constitution because they created it.....not the federal government
 
Back
Top Bottom