• 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
Andalublue said:
What currency would you use? And how much do you think it would be worth if you defaulted on your share of the US national debt? Ask Argentina and Greece how default, or the threat of it, affects your economy.
Click to expand...

Texas, as it stands today, would be the 14th largest economy on earth were it an independent nation. With our resources, population, and know-how, I would expect us to move up from there. Texas, unlike the Feds, runs a balanced budget and exercises fiscal restraint... So default would be unlikely. Things like what currency to use would work themselves out.

What currency would Greece use if it left the EU? Texas is many times larger than Greece, both land wise, wealth wise, and in terms of population. Scotland too, for that matter. Where there's a will, there's a way
 
Luftwaffe said:
Texas does not. Their would be A LOT of dependance upon the United States.

At that point, all the US would have to do is embargo Texas completely until theyre forced to rejoin or suffer heavy losses.
Click to expand...


Good luck selling that to the U.S. public.

"Umm yeah we're gonna embargo and starve out your friends and family members in Texas so we can have their oil...vote for me!!"
 
Andalublue said:
As it would appear Americans are by such superior European forms of air defence, Mr Luftwaffe.
Click to expand...

Luftwaffe is a generic term for Air Force. I can be referring to any Air Force I want.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Good luck selling that to the U.S. public.

"Umm yeah we're gonna embargo and starve out your friends and family members in Texas so we can have their oil...vote for me!!"
Click to expand...


*shrug* you'd be surprised where the dominoes fall.

Connecticut embargoed over an RFRA. I can't imagine what other states would do in response to an attempt at secession.
 
Default would be automatic if Texas refused to carry its share of the US national debt into independence, and there wouldn't be anything your resources and know-how could do to prevent capital flight and currency deflation on world markets.

I think you're right that Texas as an independent nation could survive, but not if it made an enemy of the most powerful economy on Earth, and of the global financial markets. In those circumstances it would be in a position very comparable to that of Argentina and Venezuela, but with a fraction of the oil reserves of the latter.
 

The congressional joint resolution for the annexation of Texas, passed on March 1, 1845, provided that new states, not to exceed four, could be carved out of Texas, requiring only a majority vote in the state.

Article IV section3, as you've quoted it, doesn't apply because Texas already has this approval from congress, as it was the U.S. Congress that passed said annexation agreement in 1845.

And, again, the U.S. Public didnt have the stomach for war in Vietnam or Iraq. They were dragged kicking and screaming in to WW1 and 2. Do you really think the U.S. Public would tolerate a war so close to home, to see the blood of people just like them spilled day after day? I highly doubt it.
 

I think you misunderestimate the people of Texas, my friend.

If Scotland can do it, Texas can do it.

And how would you even calculate our "share" of the U.S. National debt?
 

If they have legitimate reason to leave the Union, then sure. But it's highly unlikely that they would ever actually secede.
 
Luftwaffe said:
*shrug* you'd be surprised where the dominoes fall.

Connecticut embargoed over an RFRA. I can't imagine what other states would do in response to an attempt at secession.
Click to expand...

That was far from a full embargo.

The American People just don't have the stomach to do the things you're suggesting, especially since so many have family in Texas
 
Peter Grimm said:
Texas has the wealth, the know-how, and the population to more than hold their own. Besides, we defeated the Mexicans once before.
Click to expand...

Over half of the Texas population is from the north. Many of those people will be scared into moving back north.

A few resources that we don't have are: Lumber (not piney woods lumber, real lumber), Wheat, Corn, Soy, Citrus fruits, Berries, Coconuts and Pineapples, Water to grow crops, Iron ore, Diamonds, Gold and Silver, Fish, Pomegranates, Cantaloupe, Water crests and chestnuts, and Milk.

Would the US trade with us at all? Or, would they slap high tariffs on our goods?

Would they attack us?
 

this is a point i have made, if a state or states were to leave, what would the government do?

are they going to declare war, and march on the states, kill the people of the states, and lock it down, this would cause a great problem for the federal government has people of others states would become angry and join fight against the government, and our nation at war with itself would invite our enemies to cease the moment.
 
First: the question has already been answered.
Could Texas secede in a peaceful and democratic manner.
They tried this in 1860, the answer weather constitutional or not, was NO!
Forces were sent to force the seceding states back into the union.
Someone asked about the debt, but there are also Territory questions, would Texas
get all the land back they brought to the union on Annexation?
 
History says that is exactly what they did!
 

Well,

your material was an interesting read, but what about that pesky 'Texas v. White' ruling?

"In deciding the merits of the bond issue, the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null""

Source: Wikipedia - 'Texas v, White'
 
longview said:
History says that is exactly what they did!
Click to expand...

correct, but in that time there was a clear division of people..north and south, it is not that way no longer...

the military we currently have has been at war for a long time, and using it to kill americans is not likely to happen.

if the states would tell the federal government its not going to do something and i mean something which they deem not constitutional, ..the federal government would be powerless.
 
Last edited:
Peter Grimm said:
I think you misunderestimate the people of Texas, my friend.

If Scotland can do it, Texas can do it.
Click to expand...
Y'see there's a mismisconception right away. There's no evidence that Scotland could do it, since they've decided not to try.

And how would you even calculate our "share" of the U.S. National debt?
Click to expand...
Fortunately that wouldn't be my problem, would it. Do you accept that Texas would have responsibility for any of it? BTW, Scottish leaders accepted that they would accept responsibility for their share of the UK national debt.
 
I would not say powerless, they have quite a bit of coercive power.
I think the Federal Government cut off Highway funds to Louisiana for like 10 years over the drinking age.
I liked your point about the constitution not saying a state cannot secede.
People tend to forget that in our form of government everything that is not specifically illegal,
is legal.
 


that is a court decision..

not what founders stated and what was taught to americans before the civil war...which is what i am dealing with....the federal government is currently engaged in powers it was never delegated in the constitution, like regulation of comerce inside of states, which the court granted to them in 1942.

it is the court, which has caused a great corruption of our constitution




the 10th amendment to the constitution is one of the clearest clauses there are:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

no power of secession is delegated to the United States by the constitution, and there is no prohibited power of secession to the states per the constitution, therefore it is a power of the states, and a right of the people to alter or abolish their government.
 

the states send money to Washington via commerce taxes....they have a lot of power over tax money
 
The Supreme Court emphatically ruled that states do not have the right to secede. See Texas v. White. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/74/700

Now there are those that would say that they interpret the constitution differently. Well, that doesn't matter. The federal court system is the ultimate arbiters of what is and is not constitutional. If the supreme court ruled that you have a constitutional right to a Texan wiping your ass every day for the rest of your adult life, then that is a constitutional right you would have. Your opinion of what is and is not constitutional is irrelevant unless you sit on the federal judiciary.
 
Obviously you're sticking to your interpretation & understanding, and that's perfectly fine for discussion purposes - which is what this forum is about.

But a cornerstone of American jurisprudence is that the law is whatever a given judge rules on any given day, with the final say given to the SC.

Now, it's possible they could rule against themselves in the future ...
 

well i gave you what the founders said at the convention, and i gave you what was taught before the civil war.....so its hardly my interpretation & understanding.

as far as commerce what i mentioned....the federal government had no power and did not regulate commerce inside of states until until 1942, because the USSC ruled that "because a farmer was growing wheat to feed to his cattle", the federal government had the power to regulate inside of a state.


and the 10th amendment is very clear..there is no misunderstanding of it.
 

I know what Article IV Section 3 means. It counters the argument that Texas could legally divide itself in 2 or 5 or 10 and force the United States to kick it out of the Union. Note the "B" in the post I was responding to.

SC Justices Joseph Story and Salmon Chase both argue that the Constitution amends the Articles of Confederation and the Articles call for a perpetual union. Additionally there's at least one SC precedent for interpreting the Constitution as calling for a perpetual union. Given it's importance I'd also argue if the drafters contemplated that states would be allowed to leave the union it would be explicitly mentioned in the Constitution and not left to chance as an unnamed power delegated to the states.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…