• 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:
because they were property before secession...secession did not change that
Click to expand...

So, since their natural rights had been taken away already, secession didn't cause them to be taken away. That would be a good point were it not for the Emancipation Proclamation that started the whole thing.

Now, as for the theoretical modern secession, what would keep the new nation from instituting other laws that would take away natural rights? Do women have to have the right to vote and own property, for example? They didn't when the Constitution was written, after all. Would it be OK to discriminate against people of color, or against whites? How about gays? Could they institute a religious state in which adherence to a particular religious dogma would be required of all citizens? The new nation would be sovereign, after all.
 
Dittohead not! said:
So, since their natural rights had been taken away already, secession didn't cause them to be taken away. That would be a good point were it not for the Emancipation Proclamation that started the whole thing.

Now, as for the theoretical modern secession, what would keep the new nation from instituting other laws that would take away natural rights? Do women have to have the right to vote and own property, for example? They didn't when the Constitution was written, after all. Would it be OK to discriminate against people of color, or against whites? How about gays? Could they institute a religious state in which adherence to a particular religious dogma would be required of all citizens? The new nation would be sovereign, after all.
Click to expand...

well the federal constitution didn't deny people anything, it about powers....not the granting of rights.

remember that the bill of rights originally did not apply to states, people lived under their own state constitutions with the same rights recognized by the bill of rights and did for almost 100 years.

as to the questions i really cant answer on what would happen in the state on the actions of the government, but i don't see it seceding because of a tyrannical federal government to institute its own tyrannical laws.
 
ernst barkmann said:
well the federal constitution didn't deny people anything, it about powers....not the granting of rights.

remember that the bill of rights originally did not apply to states, people lived under their own state constitutions with the same rights recognized by the bill of rights and did for almost 100 years.

as to the questions i really cant answer on what would happen in the state on the actions of the government, but i don't see it seceding because of a tyrannical federal government to institute its own tyrannical laws.
Click to expand...
What if it seceded over the first amendment injunction against the establishment of a state religion?

There is no shortage of people in the US who think the government needs to be more religious, after all.

Point is, a state could secede for any reason. It wouldn't have to be because the government was "tyrannical."
 
Dittohead not! said:
What if it seceded over the first amendment injunction against the establishment of a state religion?

There is no shortage of people in the US who think the government needs to be more religious, after all.

Point is, a state could secede for any reason. It wouldn't have to be because the government was "tyrannical."
Click to expand...

no state is going to secede unless it believes the federal government is violating the constitution and rights of the people, because it would lose out on the benefits of the union.

Texas is it declaration states exactly that.....the northern states along with the federal government is violating the law, harassing southern citizens, and creating legislation which is unfair to southern citizens and stealing southern property.
 
ernst barkmann said:
no state is going to secede unless it believes the federal government is violating the constitution and rights of the people, because it would lose out on the benefits of the union.

Texas is it declaration states exactly that.....the northern states along with the federal government is violating the law, harassing southern citizens, and creating legislation which is unfair to southern citizens and stealing southern property.
Click to expand...

Do they have a case, do you think?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Do they have a case, do you think?
Click to expand...

the founders declared separation because the king was committing acts the founders deemed unlawful.

the S. states did the same, and in the same matter.

it is a simple principles, that people have the right to self government, the founders recognized this, our founding documents recognized this, and even the u.s. federal government recognizes this via federal law.
 
ernst barkmann said:
natural rights are part of the organic laws of america and are our nation's foundation, which all of our laws are created from.
Click to expand...

Having a natural right doesnt give anyone the right to take rights away from other people. These natural rights that you speak of are not afforded to governments, not even State Governments. The founders in talking about natural rights were talking about individual humans. Individual rights trump collective rights as a whole.

Of course claiming to have a natural right is meaningless if the government doesnt protect that right. The founders believed strongly that the colonies were better able to protect those natural rights as a union. The Articles of Confederation was a failure because it left too much power to State Governments. So logically a State leaving the US Constitution is not a good solution. And if the US Government has become corrupted beyond any attempt to fix the solution isnt to divide the country up allowing corrupt State Governments to do their evilness. And if the US Government isnt corrupted beyond all hope then it is the State Government that is the corrupted government trying to leave the US Constitution behind so it can do its evilness.

Admittedly I am dogmatic about keeping the US Constitution valid. But the secessionist is dogmatic about leaving the US Constitution behind. Who is being the Constitutionalist then?
 
ernst barkmann said:
the founders declared separation because the king was committing acts the founders deemed unlawful.

the S. states did the same, and in the same matter.

it is a simple principles, that people have the right to self government, the founders recognized this, our founding documents recognized this, and even the u.s. federal government recognizes this via federal law.
Click to expand...

ALL Americans right now have a self government. There is no reason for State secession under that premise.
 
freedomfromall said:
having a natural right doesnt give anyone the right to take rights away from other people. These natural rights that you speak of are not afforded to governments, not even state governments. The founders in talking about natural rights were talking about individual humans. Individual rights trump collective rights as a whole.

Of course claiming to have a natural right is meaningless if the government doesnt protect that right. The founders believed strongly that the colonies were better able to protect those natural rights as a union. The articles of confederation was a failure because it left too much power to state governments. So logically a state leaving the us constitution is not a good solution. And if the us government has become corrupted beyond any attempt to fix the solution isnt to divide the country up allowing corrupt state governments to do their evilness. And if the us government isnt corrupted beyond all hope then it is the state government that is the corrupted government trying to leave the us constitution behind so it can do its evilness.

Admittedly i am dogmatic about keeping the us constitution valid. But the secessionist is dogmatic about leaving the us constitution behind. Who is being the constitutionalist then?
Click to expand...

who rights are being taken away?
 
FreedomFromAll said:
ALL Americans right now have a self government. There is no reason for State secession under that premise.
Click to expand...

oh.....right to self government mean the people have a right to any government they desire to create for themselves,...therefore it they would choose to create a direct democracy it is within their right.

which that government is not compatible with the constitution.

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.
 
ernst barkmann said:
who rights are being taken away?
Click to expand...

American citizens living in the State where the State government decided that their residence is no longer American. You could say that Americans could just move if they disagree, why then didnt the framers of the US Constitution not just move? Why didnt the States just break up when the Articles were not working?
 
Too many Texans derive part of the swaggering culture from a nation that has the most powerful military on earth. Point out that an independent Texas would be an impotent player... and any movement to secession will fail.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
American citizens living in the State where the State government decided that their residence is no longer American. You could say that Americans could just move if they disagree, why then didnt the framers of the US Constitution not just move? Why didnt the States just break up when the Articles were not working?
Click to expand...

tell me how you have a natural right to be a american citizen...

what violates a right of a person?

1.... then one citizen acts upon another citizen and causes damage, lost, pain, death, and these fall under criminal law.

2 ......when a government creates a law, or an official of a government prevents a person exercising a right.

can you tell me how a government by seceding is preventing you from exercising ........what right?
 
ernst barkmann said:
oh.....right to self government mean the people have a right to any government they desire to create for themselves,...therefore it they would choose to create a direct democracy it is within their right.

which that government is not compatible with the constitution.

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.
Click to expand...

Us real American desire the US Constitution. If some anti Americans disagree then war us real Americans and see who wins. I stand behind the US Constitution, not whatever else that people want. And as every American soldier has ever done I am willing to give my life to protect the USA. SO those that desire to take over the USA or even a part of it, need to realize they have no right to do so. State secession is the act of taking over a part of the USA. You can deny that until you fingers bleed from typing, but go look at a map of this country, there is only one international border and it isnt between States. If a State somehow magically seceded that map would have to be altered. Meaning that a portion of this country was taken away. According to you though Mexicans could move into my State achieve a majority and express their natural right to self govern, and boom I am in Mexico. With zero natural rights of my own to stop the majority rule that made it happen.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Us real American desire the US Constitution. If some anti Americans disagree then war us real Americans and see who wins. I stand behind the US Constitution, not whatever else that people want. And as every American soldier has ever done I am willing to give my life to protect the USA. SO those that desire to take over the USA or even a part of it, need to realize they have no right to do so. State secession is the act of taking over a part of the USA. You can deny that until you fingers bleed from typing, but go look at a map of this country, there is only one international border and it isnt between States. If a State somehow magically seceded that map would have to be altered. Meaning that a portion of this country was taken away. According to you though Mexicans could move into my State achieve a majority and express their natural right to self govern, and boom I am in Mexico. With zero natural rights of my own to stop the majority rule that made it happen.
Click to expand...

this is a personal rant.
 
ernst barkmann said:
tell me how you have a natural right to be a american citizen...

what violates a right of a person?

1.... then one citizen acts upon another citizen and causes damage, lost, pain, death, and these fall under criminal law.

2 ......when a government creates a law, or an official of a government prevents a person exercising a right.

can you tell me how a government by seceding is preventing you from exercising ........what right?
Click to expand...

Foremost my property rights. I own my home as many Americans do in every State in the Union. If a State secedes from the US Constitution then my property would go with it. I have zero protection from that State and I would never trust a State to begin with for wanting to leave the US Constitution. Obviously that State is so damn corrupt that they have a need to destroy their relationship with all the other States. Such a State Government can take my property at will and I would have no recourse since the State has declared its self the ultimate power over me and my property. The only thing that I could do at that point to protect my own rights is to bear arms against the State Government.


In other words I am American foremost the State in which I live is of little consequence to that fact. I have lived in several States in my lifetime each has their own appeal. But in my experience that Government that has given me the most trouble has been State government not the Federal Government. I pay much more taxes to New Mexico but a long stretch than I do to the Federal Government. The State also requires much regulation of not only my property but my activities. Some of those regulations have been checked and balanced by Federal powers. The day secession was final those checks and balances would be gone and my taxes would be higher and the regulations would be two fold. And the details would be mind boggling.

It is one thing to declare that the people have a natural right to self government. Sure we do. But its another for a State to dictate what that self government will look like. I just dont trust any State government to not dictate to the people of that State since that is what they are always trying to do.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Foremost my property rights. I own my home as many Americans do in every State in the Union. If a State secedes from the US Constitution then my property would go with it. I have zero protection from that State and I would never trust a State to begin with for wanting to leave the US Constitution. Obviously that State is so damn corrupt that they have a need to destroy their relationship with all the other States. Such a State Government can take my property at will and I would have no recourse since the State has declared its self the ultimate power over me and my property. The only thing that I could do at that point to protect my own rights is to bear arms against the State Government.


In other words I am American foremost the State in which I live is of little consequence to that fact. I have lived in several States in my lifetime each has their own appeal. But in my experience that Government that has given me the most trouble has been State government not the Federal Government. I pay much more taxes to New Mexico but a long stretch than I do to the Federal Government. The State also requires much regulation of not only my property but my activities. Some of those regulations have been checked and balanced by Federal powers. The day secession was final those checks and balances would be gone and my taxes would be higher and the regulations would be two fold. And the details would be mind boggling.

It is one thing to declare that the people have a natural right to self government. Sure we do. But its another for a State to dictate what that self government will look like. I just dont trust any State government to not dictate to the people of that State since that is what they are always trying to do.
Click to expand...

oh, who taking you property away from you, a state seceding does not mean personal property is lost.

you have a right to self government, and you exercise it by voting, you don't have a right to have your candidate be in office because of that right.

if you live in Texas and they put the situation to the people then you are exercise your right of self governmental being part of the process of the decision to stay or go.
 
ernst barkmann said:
oh.....right to self government mean the people have a right to any government they desire to create for themselves,...therefore it they would choose to create a direct democracy it is within their right.

which that government is not compatible with the constitution.

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.
Click to expand...

Well we have the type of self government that we want already. In order to get rid of this one secessionists would need to force their way in.
 
ernst barkmann said:
oh, who taking you property away from you, a state seceding does not mean personal property is lost.

you have a right to self government, and you exercise it by voting, you don't have a right to have your candidate be in office because of that right.

if you live in Texas and they put the situation to the people then you are exercise your right of self governmental being part of the process of the decision to stay or go.
Click to expand...

Says you who has zero evidence that would be the case.
 
ernst barkmann said:
oh, who taking you property away from you, a state seceding does not mean personal property is lost.

you have a right to self government, and you exercise it by voting, you don't have a right to have your candidate be in office because of that right.

if you live in Texas and they put the situation to the people then you are exercise your right of self governmental being part of the process of the decision to stay or go.
Click to expand...

The decision to stay or go would be a collective decision with which not everyone would agree. Therefore, the individual who wanted to keep his/her American citizenship would see that right stripped away.

Going back to the southern states seceding to preserve private property: You do realize that the "property" in question was human beings, right?
 
Dittohead not! said:
The decision to stay or go would be a collective decision with which not everyone would agree. Therefore, the individual who wanted to keep his/her American citizenship would see that right stripped away.

Going back to the southern states seceding to preserve private property: You do realize that the "property" in question was human beings, right?
Click to expand...

it would be yes a collective decision, ....and no matter which way the vote went, you as person would have gotten to exercise your right of self government..be it in your favor or not.

yes...humans were part of the property.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom