150 years ago today Texas seceded from the union

[Vuk]

States rights are not such when those alleged rights are used to keep human beings in chains on the basis of the colour of their skin.

EDIT

What you think is irrelevant. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that secession is illegal.
Yes, well the Supreme Court also ruled that segregation was legal, so pardon me for not bowing down. They have changed their minds many times before. The ruling was done to preserve the Union more than it was to stay true to the Constitution. Whether or not a state SHOULD be able to leave the Union, the Constitution protects their freedom to do so.

You are right, that a State does not have the power to keep someone enslaved, but when it leaves the Union the Constitution no longer applies to it. I was referring to a State's right to seceed. Something that I think was used wrongly, but nonetheless a right.

[Subotan]

Yes, well the Supreme Court also ruled that segregation was legal, so pardon me for not bowing down. They have changed their minds many times before. The ruling was done to preserve the Union more than it was to stay true to the Constitution. Whether or not a state SHOULD be able to leave the Union, the Constitution protects their freedom to do so.

The Supreme Court does not like reversing precedent, unless it is clear that the original judgement was wrong. In the case of whether secession is legal, the Court is clearly right, since to rule otherwise would be treasonous.

You are right, that a State does not have the power to keep someone enslaved, but when it leaves the Union the Constitution no longer applies to it. I was referring to a State's right to seceed. Something that I think was used wrongly, but nonetheless a right.

That right does not exist under any reading of the Constitution of the United States. That was confirmed by the precedent, if not of Texas vs. White, then by the entire American Civil War.

[Vuk]

The Supreme Court does not like reversing precedent, unless it is clear that the original judgement was wrong. In the case of whether secession is legal, the Court is clearly right, since to rule otherwise would be treasonous.


That right does not exist under any reading of the Constitution of the United States. That was confirmed by the precedent, if not of Texas vs. White, then by the entire American Civil War.

No, the precedent and the Civil War made sure that it would not be tolerated, but that does not mean that it was not the founders' intent. It is a double-edged sword really. If the Federal Gov is right (as in the case of the Civil War), the Right to Sec (RtS) could mean bad things for many people, and the destruction of the Union (ei, a loss of security and stability for everyone). At the same time though, if the States are right and the Federal government oversteps its bounds (which has happened many times before, but the courts were there to strike laws down), BUT the courts side with the Fed Gov, then individual State's RtS would be the only chance people have of escaping absolute tyranny in a broken and corrupt system. As you can see, giving or denying States the RtS could end up taking away the freedom of and enslaving millions of people, depending on the circumstances. As such, I really do not know where I stand on what is right (as they could both be great wrongs), but from my reading of the constitution, I do think that it was the intent of the Founders to give individual states the RtS...no matter what we decided after that.

[Subotan]

No, the precedent and the Civil War made sure that it would not be tolerated, but that does not mean that it was not the founders' intent.

Again, what the Founders think is pretty much irrelevant since they never wrote anything regarding secession into the constitution. Using the opinion of dudes who have been dead for 200 years is not a way to set legal precedent on a matter as important as this.

If the Federal Gov is right (as in the case of the Civil War), the Right to Sec (RtS) could mean bad things for many people, and the destruction of the Union (ei, a loss of security and stability for everyone). At the same time though, if the States are right and the Federal government oversteps its bounds (which has happened many times before, but the courts were there to strike laws down), BUT the courts side with the Fed Gov, then individual State's RtS would be the only chance people have of escaping absolute tyranny in a broken and corrupt system.

Such a scenario would be far better resolved with constitutional reform than secession.

As you can see, giving or denying States the RtS could end up taking away the freedom of and enslaving millions of people, depending on the circumstances.

Do you honestly think that that is a possibility in the modern United States? Get real.

As such, I really do not know where I stand on what is right (as they could both be great wrongs), but from my reading of the constitution, I do think that it was the intent of the Founders to give individual states the RtS...no matter what we decided after that.

If they had they would have put it in. They didn't, therefore they didn't.