• 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!

Can Texas Secede from the U.S.?

Crovax said:
You are clearly out of touch with reality if you think people would rather kill Texans than terrorists.
Click to expand...

You are clearly out of touch with reality if you can't see the difference in most people's minds between launching some foreign adventure and fighting to preserve the US against a bunch of secessionists.
 
Only a ****ing idiot would believe Texas will leave the Union.
 
Texmex said:
Only a ****ing idiot would believe Texas will leave the Union.
Click to expand...

Well there's a 99.9% chance they won't. The question is: can Texas legally secede?

I say no, but even if Texas were legally able to, I'm betting my marbles it still wouldn't happen.
 
Tigerace117 said:
You are clearly out of touch with reality if you can't see the difference in most people's minds between launching some foreign adventure and fighting to preserve the US against a bunch of secessionists.
Click to expand...

Yes there is a big difference between killing enemies who are trying to destroy you and invading a state and killing fellow citizens. You going to volunteer to fight in the invasion of Texas?
 
Texmex said:
Only a ****ing idiot would believe Texas will leave the Union.
Click to expand...

Except that isn't the question. Perhaps you might read the OP before commenting.
 
dimensionallava said:
I dont see why anyones opinion would matter, the law clearly says they cant.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White
Click to expand...
I missed that law, can you point out the specific law that "clearly says they [WE] can't"?

Oh, and let me tell ya, so you may know the difference... a court case and law are different. Court cases, even decided Supreme Court Cases, can be wrong and can be overturned. Plessy v Ferguson a case in point. Laws, even amendments, can be repealed.
 
TheGoverness said:
Well there's a 99.9% chance they won't. The question is: can Texas legally secede?

I say no, but even if Texas were legally able to, I'm betting my marbles it still wouldn't happen.
Click to expand...

Not soon, but in the near future I could see it. States have less and less authority and if the SCOTUS tilts 2 or 3 more justices to left and uses that power to govern when they can't get stuff through congress. I could see it. Especially with states self segregating into blue and red states and when liberals and conservatives can't even bear to do business together. Something needs to unite us soon or we are headed for a big secession / civil war.
 
One a similar note, I wonder if we could just sell Tejas to Mexico? It would improve them both.
 
Crovax said:
Yes there is a big difference between killing enemies who are trying to destroy you and invading a state and killing fellow citizens. You going to volunteer to fight in the invasion of Texas?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I would. Of course, there will be no "invasion of Texas", because Texas actually seceding is highly unlikely.

You also underestimate the effects of the populace seeing a couple trucks full of the really wild guys in the secessionist movement blazing away mowing down a bunch of clueless civvies.
 
TheGoverness said:
Nope. Texas v. White already settled this issue.
Click to expand...

They justified it by claiming that the AOC formed a Perpetual union. The problem there is that the AOC was no longer standing, so if it was a perpetual union or not is irreverent.

I also find that there was a conflict of interest in the case with at least one of the justices that voted against the states.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
Secession doesn't have to be legal. Once you secede you aren't bound by US law anymore.
Click to expand...

Nonsense - if one renounces their citizenship then they are still under the laws of where they are. A state may not declare itself exempt from US law any more than city may declare itself exempt from state law.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nonsense - if one renounces their citizenship then they are still under the laws of where they are. A state may not declare itself exempt from US law any more than city may declare itself exempt from state law.
Click to expand...

Which is wrong, imho. Renouncing your citizenship and still being bound to the laws of the land defeats the entire purpose of renouncing your citizenship in the first place.

It reminds me of how the EU is still going to impose rules on the UK even if they are no longer part of the EU. Who else can pull that kind of **** besides some governmental body?
 
Henrin said:
Which is wrong, imho. Renouncing your citizenship and still being bound to the laws of the land defeats the entire purpose of renouncing your citizenship in the first place.
Click to expand...

What criminal (or tax evader) would not do so if that (excuse?) placed them above (beyond?) the law?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What criminal (or tax evader) would not do so if that (excuse?) placed them above (beyond?) the law?
Click to expand...

So membership shouldn't come with the duty to obey the law? What is the point of membership then? Just to vote? Oh wait...it's due process. Basically what that means is that being a member means you get a trial before thrown in prison, while not being a member means you might get a trial, maybe.
 
This time wasting BS has come up before.

The South,including Texas,lost the Civil War back in 1865 and the South is not going to rise again.

Wait and see.
 
Beaudreaux said:
There's no part in the Constitution that specifically prevents secession. However, the authority of who may decide if a territory may join the union is found in the Constitution in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.


This should be the same or similar procedure for a state to leave the union. In regard to Puerto Rico, they hold a plebiscite every 10 or so years regarding status. Each time they do, statehood gains more and more votes. So far, it hasn't gained a majority, however. Once it does, then the government of Puerto Rico will petition the Congress for inclusion in the union as a state under the authority of Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1.

I would imagine, that if a state had a vote of its citizens to leave the union, and Congress had a vote approving it, the state would be out of the union. Although, if there were certain counties that voted to stay in the union, they may could petition to be annexed by an adjacent state and by doing so stay within the United States. Regardless, it would be a serious mess.
Click to expand...

As you correctly state, our Constitution does not specifically prevent secession and Art IV S3 C4 does show a potential template for withdrawal, peacefully, by a state, or states, by gaining the consent of the legislature of that state, or states concerned, as well as that of Congress.

However, I do not see your potential of counties option to secede. That would be, based on the potential template, up to the state itself, its Constitution and its legislature to decide, IMO. If the state did not consent to it, pursuant to the stated Art IV section and clause, it could not be done without the seceding State's legislative consent. Of course there could easily be some horse trading by the National Congress to get their consent to secede...

It might be a serious mess, but if a state truly no longer wants to be in a Union which is going in a direction that it and its people clearly do not want to follow, it might be a bigger mess to try to keep them in such a dysfunctional union. Like going to war, it should not be a impulsive or capricious decision, but if they want out, like we did from Great Britain in 1776, a nation should not have to spill blood to keep them in.

Matter of fact, I think passive resistance and non violence as practiced by Gandhi and Dr. MLKing, Jr should be the method of choice. If all the people in Texas no longer complied with Federal law, did not pay any of the various Federal taxes, refused to work in conjunction with Federal agencies... what could the Feds do?

Cant put 27 million Texans in Jail.
 
Henrin said:
So membership shouldn't come with the duty to obey the law? What is the point of membership then? Just to vote? Oh wait...it's due process. Basically what that means is that being a member means you get a trial before thrown in prison, while not being a member means you might get a trial, maybe.
Click to expand...

Nope, location (not membership) determines jurisdiction.
 
dimensionallava said:
The South will not rise again.... get over it already
Click to expand...

The whole perpetual and indissoluble argument is based on the AOC that was replaced by the Constitution. It blatantly absurd to claim the country is bound by law that is no longer standing.

And really, why were they even looking at the AOC? I get the feeling the justices were looking for any way to rule against secession and when they found it in the AOC they just decided to ignore the fact that the AOC was not law at the time.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
Nope, location (not membership) determines jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

How does a nation just have jurisdiction over my life based on my location? How does that work exactly?
 
Patrickt said:
" But is it actually legal for Texas to leave the United States?Simply put, the answer is no. Historical and legal precedents make it clear that Texas could not pull off a Texit — at least not legally.
“The legality of seceding is problematic,” said Eric McDaniel, associate professor of government at the University of Texas at Austin. “The Civil War played a very big role in establishing the power of the federal government and cementing that the federal government has the final say in these issues.”
Many historians believe that when the Confederacy surrendered at Appomattox in 1865, the idea of secession was also defeated, according to McDaniel. The Union’s victory set a precedent that states could not legally secede."
https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/24/can-texas-legally-secede-united-states/

The question was whether or not Texas could secede from the union legally. I don't agree that an invasion and conquest settles the question...legally. I don't question for a moment that Texas could not withstand an invasion by the U.S. government.

But, where in the Constitution does it say the federal government has the right, the authority, to prevent a state from withdrawing? Where does it say that the U.S. is like the Mafia and once you join you can never leave?

Can a state legally, in your opinion, withdraw from the U.S.?
Click to expand...

I believe that in the long run, they can, though it would be complicated and messy. And I don't buy the comparisons with the civil war. I don't think the US today would fight a civil war over a succession movement. The battles would primarily be legal and public. In any case, if we elect one more president who has the same lack of respect for the US Constitution and the separation of powers as Obama, or we end up with a solid majority of the US Supreme court justices legislating from the bench based on ideology rather then legal interpretation, we may soon find out. When the US government no longer works as the US Constitution is written, then all bets are off.
 
PeteEU said:
Your civil war kinda debunks that theory...



that is another matter and creates problems in it self since the "states" are often have made up borders dictated by Washington back in the day. There could easily be parts that dont want too.. then what?



Puerto Rico is not a nation.. it is a colony. And there is no real legal process to join the US other than by conquest or acquisition.. both of which most states actually became part of the US.
Click to expand...

You have to keep in mind that the Succession movement that led to the Civil war, did not start in any legal fashion. It started with the south attacking the Union. I don't think Texas will adopt any plans for a military strike on Washington DC.
 
ObamacareFail said:
You have to keep in mind that the Succession movement that led to the Civil war, did not start in any legal fashion. It started with the south attacking the Union. I don't think Texas will adopt any plans for a military strike on Washington DC.
Click to expand...

Actually it did start peacefully. It only ever lead to an attack because Lincoln was being unreasonable and not taking his people out of the state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom