• 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!

Constitution contains no language prohibiting secession

roguenuke said:
Yes. I agree with it for what it is, not your interpretation of it.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It literally says humans " are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". Thats 'what it is'. You do or dont agree with that?
 
Rich2018 said:
The same as any country - including the USA

Both Britain in 1776 and the USA in 1861 deemed that secession was illegal.
Click to expand...

The federal gov'ts deemed succession to be illegal. The secessionists did not. If the federal gov't cannot make the secessionist behave, the secessionist will succeed.
 
cabse5 said:
The federal gov'ts deemed succession to be illegal. The secessionists did not. If the federal gov't cannot make the secessionist behave, the secessionist will succeed.
Click to expand...

I think you mean secession

And I think it's more correct to say that secessionists didn't care about how the country they were seceding from viewed it

Well yeah, if the government can't win, the rebels will.
 
jonny5 said:
It literally says humans " are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". Thats 'what it is'. You do or dont agree with that?
Click to expand...
I dont agree with that part. I dont agree with a creator.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
jonny5 said:
10,000 then. But again, you dont agree with human rights. Youre wrong, but thats a fundamental difference Im not sure can be moved forward.
Click to expand...
I dont agree with inalienable or objective human rights. I agree with having rights that are declared that the governed agree upon.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Would you support the rest of America using force if a State showed it overwhelmingly wanted to leave?
Lets say Alaska (as it all they way up there next to Canada) had a vote and the result was 80% in favour of independence?
 
Peter said:
Would you support the rest of America using force if a State showed it overwhelmingly wanted to leave?
Lets say Alaska (as it all they way up there next to Canada) had a vote and the result was 80% in favour of independence?
Click to expand...

I would support the state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom