Debate Rounds (3)
There is however, a happy coincidence. There is one state where the vast majority still cling to the principals our nation was founded on. This state is large enough to welcome all who wish to join her. This state just so happens to be the one state with an almost unquestioned right to secede from the union. That state is Texas. The lifeboat of freedom. Many years ago when governments were corrupt, people fled to America. Now America itself is becoming corrupt. The only remaining coarse is to separate.
Time is growing short. Not only is the nation destroying itself from within, it is damaging our way of escape. The largest example of this is illegal immigration. The federal government has not only failed to protect it's borders, it has stopped Texas from doing it itself. Not only could Texas survive on it's own, it could survive better on it's own.
Those spreading the corruption will be happy to see us go. We wish to be free. This is why I strongly urge that the great state of Texas should secede from the union!
I accept this challenge, and I shall post my argument and questions for my opponent next round!
I made it a three round debate for a reason, but OK.
Sorry for not noticing his things in the first round(his argument), but this I shall give my argument, and then ask some questions to my opponent
First Contention - Legal or Illegal?
As I said before, I am glad to have accepted this challenge, and would like to state I am a Pro-Alabamian Secession. Mainly due I'm from Alabama and would follow it wherever it goes(unless it commits some atrocity). But I accepted this as I wanted to challenge myself on why a state cannot 'LEGALLY' secede.
Legal - Permitted by law
Secede - Wit draw formally from membership in a federal union, an alliance, or a political or religious organization
Illegal - Forbidden by law
Now, of coarse you might be wondering why I brought up the word 'Legal?' Well it is mainly due with the belief that Texas is the only state that can "legally" secede. Which of coarse if ignorant enough, I would believe that too, but to say that isn't true. Sadly...
It has been proved that Texas cannot secede legally, nor any other state. This happened in the Texas v. White Case in the Supreme Court, after Texas claimed back original jurisdiction over itself, the Court then stated, "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'."
So in the end, even if Texas tried to secede, it would be illegal, and would then classify it as an illegal secession. Which would then make them an unrecognized cause, thus causing the destruction of Texas itself, and/or causing the next American Civil War. Which would be just as bloody as the first American Civil War, and pointless.
While yes, Texas could put up a fight, it wouldn't have the support by any nation due to illegally seceding, but in the end Texas would lose due to being outmaneuvered, outgunned, and out tacticed. So it is best to stay united rather then split.
Questions Towards Opponent
1. Whose to say the current Texas Government doesn't have corruption, and the seceding one as well?
2. Could you explain Illegal Immigrants are harming Texas(yes I know they harm), but I need evidence how they harm Texas.
3. Do you have any proof to back this opionated argument of yours?
4. Can you tell me the percentage for how many Texans actually want to secede(cause I can, cause I researched)?
- Only about 18% of Texans actually want to secede. So your argument wouldn't appeal most Texans. Sorry...
Remember People to Vote Con, and good luck to my opponent to support his oppionated statement so far.
Secession is legal. Many of the states would never have joined the union in the first place if they had ever thought that secession would not be an option. They seem never to have discussed the issue at the constitutional convention. I believe it was obvious. Imagine joining any sort of organization, and at some point wished to leave. Only THEN the other members inform you that you can't leave. Secession is not banned in the constitution, and according to the X amendment, all powers not granted to the federal government are "reserved to the states!" If a power is not TAKEN from the states in the constitution they still have it. This includes secession as reserved to the states.
My opponent argues that the supreme court has ruled against secession. That may be, but they have no say in the matter. They are not given in the constitution any legislative power, nor power to amend the constitution, and therefore can only apply law, not make it as they often try to do. The supreme court is, in fact, a large reason we need to leave!
The third argument is that, even if secession is against the law, it can still be justifiable. In the revolutionary war, revolution was "illegal", yet we all agree that they were right. As all the founders understood, when government becomes tyrannical it is not only justifiable for the citizens to throw down their current government, it is their duty. This argument would justify throwing down the government and setting up a new one. However, we don't have to do anything that drastic. We can regain our liberty without bloodshed by simply leaving the union.
My opponent argues that there would, in fact be bloodshed. I disagree. What president in this day and age would order that invasion? If he did, he could only do it for 60 days without the consent of congress. Do you really think they will agree to that? Even if government commanded the attack, how many U.S. soldiers would carry out the command? It would not happen. The separation would be peaceful.
Taking into account how few soldiers would fight in the event of war, and how many people would flock to Texas, I don't think you can be so sure that they would lose. Also, I really don't think you can ever say Texas is "outgunned!"
Even if there was war, freedom is worth it. Patrick Henry: "Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?... give me liberty, or give me death!
My argument is based on the principal of the consent of the governed. If we are held in this nation by force, clearly this principal is dead.
No room for quotes. Thought I would have 2 speeches
Correction: 25% wanted to secede as of 2014. After Cruz dropping out, many, like me, will understand the need.
I ask that any new arguments my opponent brings up in his speech be ignored, as I cannot respond.
Please stand with me for liberty! God bless Texas!
Rebuttal and Conclusion
Clearly stated by Brion McClanahan, "Scalia argued that a the question was not in the realm of legal possibility because 1) the
United States would not be party to a lawsuit on the issue 2) the 'constitutional' basis of secession had been 'resolved by the Civil War,' and 3) there is no right to secede, as the Pledge of Allegiance clearly illustrates through the line 'one nation, indivisible'."
This meaning and stating that any chance of secession is hereby illegal by law, and by even by our own Constitution. While yes the Declaration of Independence clearly states, "Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights and could alter or abolish government 'destructive' of those rights." This does not mean it is legal, like you have stated, it just means that it is a right. So either way it would clearly still be illegal, and Texas would be an unrecognized state.
Furthermore as I stated in my argument about states rights to secede, which said this, "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'." Which means the X Amendment would not apply to secession, since it would be nullified immediately by the Federal Court.
As I stated before with the Texas v. White Case, which was brought to the Supreme Court in the end proved secession is illegal, and was helped backed by the American Civil War years prior as evidence. Which tears down your argument on "legal secession."
I argue bloodshed out of opinion, as the Federal Government wouldn't openly allow a state to secede from the Union. Of coarse they would take measures to try and stop there from being bloodshed by asking for piece, but in the end there would be some.
Furthermore he failed to answer my questions such as, "Do you have any proof to back this opinionated argument of yours?" Which in the end, for his failure to answer my questions, makes his argument invalid, and therefore unacceptable, and destroys his whole case!
This is why I hope you vote Con on this Debate!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 42lifeuniverseverything 9 months ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Great Debate and tough decision, but unfortunately for reasons that I was hoping would not be the case. First, Con you should have paid attention to the fact that Pro brought arguments up in the opening round, and wanted you too as well. The mistake is not excusable because you hid behind it later when you said that Pro has not brought up evidence. He himself stated he did not have any time to because of your gaffe at the beginning. The debate centered on legal vs illegal for Con and should vs shouldn't for Pro. Con, you ignored that Pro wanted to debate whether it should happen, not whether it was legal. Pro responded to your illegality argument by asserting that it was a)not illegal and b)it doesn't matter because it should happen. So then the debate went to violence (reason it shouldn't happen). Con concede in end violence probably would not happen. Big mistake. Also, Con's spelling and grammar gave me headaches (Pro had issues too). Ultimately, dropped arguments make me vote PRO.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.