4588686 Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Texas joined through a treaty. Simple 'nuff to nullify it. How? Is the state of Texas still a sovereignty nation? A state cannot have a unilateral treaty with another nation. The constitution forbids it. So Texas cannot have a still enduring treaty with the US. Such a treaty would be unconstitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r2Dtoo Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Texas joined through a treaty. Simple 'nuff to nullify it. The Catholic Church forever. The Union is diseased and dying... The Union didn't let Texas leave after the Civil War. What makes you think they let them leave by themselves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted January 31, 2013 Author Share Posted January 31, 2013 Perpetual means no expiration date. That doesn't mean indissoluble. The Constitution does not enumerate the rights of the sovereign states. The default assumption as regards that is that anything not forbidden remains with the states or the people. Nowhere in the Constitution, which was written to enumerate the powers of the Federal government, is the power to compel a state to remain in the union. I joined the Boy Scouts only with permission of the people running that crap. Doesn't mean I can't leave the Boy Scouts. we done been through this before. it was bloody and really expensive. Ah, the might makes right argument. The Union didn't let Texas leave after the Civil War. What makes you think they let them leave by themselves? An abusive husband might well prevent his wife from leaving him. That doesn't mean she lacked the right to leave him. That makes him an abusive husband. Pay attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groo the Wanderer Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 How? Is the state of Texas still a sovereignty nation? A state cannot have a unilateral treaty with another nation. The constitution forbids it. So Texas cannot have a still enduring treaty with the US. Such a treaty would be unconstitutional. nope. read it again. all of it this time. The Union didn't let Texas leave after the Civil War. What makes you think they let them leave by themselves? You mean the War of Northern Aggression. The libs won't be able to stop us this time.around... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 nope. read it again. all of it this time. There wasn't much to read. You claimed that Texas joined the union by treaty and this treaty could easily enough be nullified. What did I miss that made my criticisms of your view flawed? Perpetual means no expiration date. That's actually exactly what it means. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perpetual Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 How? Is the state of Texas still a sovereignty nation? A state cannot have a unilateral treaty with another nation. The constitution forbids it. So Texas cannot have a still enduring treaty with the US. Such a treaty would be unconstitutional. What makes the U.S. Constitution an objective truth that cannot be denied or rejected? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 What makes the U.S. Constitution an objective truth that cannot be denied or rejected? Nothing. I'm not even arguing that states do not have a right to secede. I just don't think it's clear that they do. The Constitution is an extremely flawed document with a tremendous amount of ambiguity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Nothing. I'm not even arguing that states do not have a right to secede. I just don't think it's clear that they do. Why would that matter? If the U.S. Constitution clearly forbid States leaving the Union why would that matter? Why couldn't it be rejected if the people of a State or States voted overwhelming to make a new nation with a new constitution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Why would that matter? If the U.S. Constitution clearly forbid States leaving the Union why would that matter? Why couldn't it be rejected if the people of a State or States voted overwhelming to make a new nation with a new constitution? If the members of a state voted to secede and voted to take with them their states portion of the national debt and reimburse the federal government for funding they've received for projects aimed at revamping the national economy et cetera then I feel like a peaceful solution would be found. Even Texas v White said that states had the option of leaving if the rest of the union assented to it. I don't think that anyone would argue that no state ever has the right to secede. I think it would be difficult to work out and something would have to be done to provide for the presumably large minority of that state's population who want to remain citizens of the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilllabettt Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 might doesn't make right. but might makes the law (I think you would agree with me on this point.) Once upon a time in America there was a debate about whether the law should be interpreted to make secession legal -- or not. There was a war, the outcome of which determined that the law would be interpreted to make it illegal. Considerable precedence was thus established for that interpretation. No amount of wrangling with the law as it is written will overcome that precedence. If you would like secession be legal then you will need to change the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Why would that matter? If the U.S. Constitution clearly forbid States leaving the Union why would that matter? Why couldn't it be rejected if the people of a State or States voted overwhelming to make a new nation with a new constitution? Did the confederate states hold a secession vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted January 31, 2013 Author Share Posted January 31, 2013 There wasn't much to read. You claimed that Texas joined the union by treaty and this treaty could easily enough be nullified. What did I miss that made my criticisms of your view flawed? That's actually exactly what it means. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perpetual Wow, a dictionary entry! That still doesn't mean a contract is indissoluble, or that parties to the contract may never leave it. might doesn't make right. but might makes the law (I think you would agree with me on this point.) Once upon a time in America there was a debate about whether the law should be interpreted to make secession legal -- or not. There was a war, the outcome of which determined that the law would be interpreted to make it illegal. Considerable precedence was thus established for that interpretation. No amount of wrangling with the law as it is written will overcome that precedence. If you would like secession be legal then you will need to change the law. War is not one of the means of settling Constitutional issues, last I read the document. "If enough people are killed, whatever the winning side says is cool" theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) might doesn't make right. but might makes the law (I think you would agree with me on this point.)But are they not the same? A law, if it is in fact law, is just, good and right. A law that is unjust is no law at all. Just law must have some basis in the natural law, not man's ability to spill more of his brother's blood, than his brother is able to spill of his. There is a solid foundation from both natural law and Sacred Tradition, that citizens can overthrow or breakaway from unjust governments or tyranny. The Just War Theory, which is based on natural law, allows for secession, not just some invading army. The American Revolution set greater and more fundamental precedent, than the American Civil War, because it was it's founding. Based on the inalienable right of a people to break away from one government and form another independent one. Edited February 1, 2013 by KnightofChrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted February 1, 2013 Author Share Posted February 1, 2013 If you fix the "it's", I'll prop that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 If you fix the "it's", I'll prop that. Too late. "It's" a pain to post from my phone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now