Centinel
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2011
- Messages
- 2,984
- Reaction score
- 1,366
- Location
- Penn's Woods
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
You don't make any sense. You dont believe Madison concerning the preamble. Its history. He as the main player explained what 'we the people' means.
The only reason that it wasn't worded as the Articles of Confederation did, citing every state in the preamble, was because they didin't know if every state would ratify. They neve said 'we the people' to indicate the mass people of the nation of America. 'We the people' always means 'we the people of the states', who ratify.
So, unless you have something to disprove this, just saying one mans opinion is pretty silly.
Quantrill
And pay for it how? You can't grow naval vessels overnight, where would they get them even if they had the money?That would remain to be seen. However, Texas is the 15th largest economy in the world, so I would assume that it could afford a capable military.
Or we could just blow them as we go, which is a better option.It sounds reasonable that they would have to buy out any existing federal installations.
Like anyone would loan Libya money on a government bond? Those things take time.If I had to guess, I don't think they would have an oil buck. More likely a fiat currency like every other country in the world.
Are you asking who would loan money to Texas? I imagine anyone who is in the market for government bonds.
I've seen you assuming two options (though I admit to not having read the entire thread): let them go quietly OR a ground war. I'm pointing out other options. Label them as traitors, refuse to trade with them, blow the installations as we leave so they have nothing but the Texas National Guard left. Don't honor their money. Stop UN relations, since we're on the Security Council and they wouldn't be, which includes the WTO and the World Bank. Lots of ways to simply be "uncooperative" that would stifle them. And that's just a few things I can think of. I'm sure the real power players in DC could make it much, much worse. Like I said, doesn't take a ground war to help them understand just what they're missing.No you've lost me.
Since I've seen nothing else (though I admit to not having read the entire thread) I've seen you assuming two options: let them go quietly OR a ground war. I'm pointing out other options. Label them as traitors, refuse to trade with them, blow the installations as we leave so they have nothing but the Texas National Guard left. Don't honor their money. Stop UN relations, since we're on the Security Council and they wouldn't be, which includes the WTO and the World Bank. Lots of ways to simply be "uncooperative" that would stifle them. And that's just a few things I can think of. I'm sure the real power players in DC could make it much, much worse. Like I said, doesn't take a ground war to help them understand just what they're missing.
You don't make any sense. You dont believe Madison concerning the preamble. Its history. He as the main player explained what 'we the people' means.
The only reason that it wasn't worded as the Articles of Confederation did, citing every state in the preamble, was because they didin't know if every state would ratify. They neve said 'we the people' to indicate the mass people of the nation of America. 'We the people' always means 'we the people of the states', who ratify.
So, unless you have something to disprove this, just saying one mans opinion is pretty silly.
Quantrill
If Texas goes its own way. The resulting shift in electoral votes and congressional districts will make this into a much more liberal country politically. I wonder what the implications of that would be.
While it may be appealing on a political level to let Texas go and take their automatic Republican Electoral votes with them, as a patriotic American, I must vote NO. There is no right to secede.
As a native Californian, I must say that I would welcome the confirmation that the time I did visit Texas that I really was in a foreign country.
I'm sure Texas would like to have it's cake and eat it, too, but I doubt the rest of the US would look at secession as the act of a "friend".Okay, now I see what you are saying. I agree. If it wished to, the US government could certainly make life difficult for a new independent Texas. I would hope it would not go down that road. I'd rather separate as friends than to make a mortal enemy. Having Texas turn out to be another Canada would be the best outcome I could imagine. I guess it all depends on how vindictive the US government would be. (And history has shown that it can be pretty darn vindictive.)
I'm sure Texas would like to have it's cake and eat it, too, but I doubt the rest of the US would look at secession as the act of a "friend".
I don't see the big deal with Texas, or any states, choosing to leave the federation. But then again, I agree with phattonez that any people ought to be able to leave their current political unit and form their own commonwealth.
It was said that no one had considered secession before. The Hartford convention proves otherwise.
Quantrill
All of the Ariticles are done away with because a unanamous vote to change them was required. Which couldn't be gotten because N. Carolina and Rhode Island wouldn't show up. Thus no change could be made. Soloution? Chunk em out the window and make another. And so they did.
Quantrill
Howdy,
Let's assume times get tough, the US dollar crashes or something of that magnitude. Would you mind Texas secession if they choose to?
eace
Article VI says that engagements made under the Articles still count. I would call the engagement into a "perpetual union" a rather important engagement. Now generally, I'd agree that the Articles were thrown out, but the Constitution specifically states that engagements made under the Articles still apply unless otherwise stated. So, your contention is either that the Constitution DID state otherwise, or that this engagement doesn't count.
So I'll throw the Constitutional argument back to the pro-secessionists. Where is the language in the Constitution that negates the "perpetual union" put in place by "The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union?"
If the Constitution ever negated that part of the Articles, that would be different. I don't see that it did, therefore the "perpetual union" applied in 1860, as it does today.
Some would think that peaceful secession and splitting up countries hasn't been done before. It's not as hard as people think it is.
Some would think that peaceful secession and splitting up countries hasn't been done before. It's not as hard as people think it is.
I resent that statement.
You wouldn't make such a generalized, broad-brush name-calling insult against a RACE... oh no, that wouldn't be PC.... but you feel free to make it against all inhabitants of a region.
Hypocrisy.
Are you suggesting that the Articles of Confederation still apply, since they were an engagement made prior to the constitution?
But it is the opinion of one man. That is undeniable fact.
His opinion does not have the force of law. As such, it accounts for no more legal standing than any other persons views or opinions does.
YOu want to pretend that the Constitution says something that it does not say. That is dishonest.
I don't see the big deal with Texas, or any states, choosing to leave the federation. But then again, I agree with phattonez that any people ought to be able to leave their current political unit and form their own commonwealth.
Except where changed by the Constitution, specific engagements apply. For example, debts to and alliance with France still applied. I say that perpetual union is one such engagement that was not negated in the Constitution.
Its called 'money'. The same reason they wouldn't let the Southern states secede.
Quantrill
Its called 'money'. The same reason they wouldn't let the Southern states secede.
Quantrill
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?