if you're not interested in a debate, why did you respond in the first place, and respond 3 times subsequently? And all three times not answer a simple question?jerry_r60 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 4:13 pmI'll go back and respond once more to your original post and leave it at that. You commented ".... remind them of how this state came to be an independent country and ask them if it was legal to do so.". The answer to that question is no it was not legal. To me and I think anyone else reading this is plain English take this to mean is it against the law? This would be man made law from the prevailing government. Given that, i didn't see the point of asking that question. If it was a discussion about what is moral or ethical, that's a different question but not the one suggested.wil wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 11:48 amwhat i wrote is called a logical conclusion based on your statement. If secession is illegal per man-made law such as Mexico or Britain, as you stated. Then the logical conclusion is what the Founders identified in the Declaration of Independence is a falsehood, ie: a lie.jerry_r60 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 10:52 amThis would be an interesting discussion around a cup of coffee. I saw your "question" about my logic more as a statement just with a question mark at the end so commented on that. I'll grant a big caveat, our constitution allows change.wil wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 10:23 amyou didn't answer my question.jerry_r60 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 9:53 amYou are certainly free to think that's what my logic dictates.wil wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 7:18 pmthen by your logic what the Founders wrote in our Declaration of Independence is a lie?jerry_r60 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 6:03 pmYes it was illegal, it was against Mexican law. There was a revolt and a declaration of independence. Same with the colonies declaring independence from Britain. It was against British law, the people revolted with a war and declared independence. Of course the south tried and failed to separate from the US.
There are people who have commented that they thought Texas had a right to declare independence legally, that's what is your hearing people respond to that incorrect and illegal. So not the same thing as how the state or the country were formed unless you are talking about revolution.
if what the Founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence is the truth, they correctly identified the right to self-determination and how that relates to the authority of government and it's purpose.
Is it the truth that no man-made law can legitimately supersede that right.
yes or no?
Because according to your statement and hence logic, secession or otherwise removing a government from a body politic was or is illegal according to government created laws. Be it Mexico, Britain, etc.
If what you state here is the truth, then what the Founders wrote & identified is not the truth, ie: a lie.
It is either/ or. Either one of these is the truth, there is no in between. Which is it? Is it illegal to engage in the right to self-determination as identified in the Declaration of Independence or is it illegal owing to government created law and hence what the Founders wrote is a lie?
In your original post you said to ask if Texas declaring independence was illegal. At that time it was under Mexican law and the answer would be yes so I wasn't sure what asking that did.
As for the Declaration of Independence question it makes interesting discussion around a table on what it means and how it applies in theory but we already have a test case in this country with states wanting to secede. I suppose some state may ask in the future and the federal decision go the other way.
We have also already had a SCOTUS decision in Texas vs White
It is why I said this is an either/or answer, either one or the other is the truth.
Either individuals have the inherent right of self-determination as identified in the Declaration of Independence and no 'law' has the legitimate authority to deny that right on any basis, OR man-made law has the authority to deny that right. Hence secession or related activities are illegal.
As for the Tx vrs White decision. Here is the question: If that decision is correct, then on what basis of authority does that court exist?
The court said the very action which created that court is illegal, secession. therefore it is a logical conclusion that court exists illegally, in violation of the british crown.
Their so-called 'ruling' is self-contradictory. Either that court exists legally as part of a legitimate government owing to the legality of secession, or secession per that court is illegal and therefore the logical conclusion is that court does not exist legally owing to it was created by an illegal act per it's own ruling.
Again, it is an either/or answer.
The same applies to your logic about a test-case. Did the south have the inherent right to self-determination, therefore the logical conclusion being what they did was lawful and Lincoln had no legal right to wage war against that new nation?
I'll leave this topic at that, I'm not interested in a constitutional debate on this topic or try to argue the logic of my statements or yours with messages back and forth in the forum.
if what you say is factual, secession and such activities are illegal, give me a basis of why that is factual. I have offered reasons for my own stance and still offer the simple question:
If secession and related activities are illegal per government created law as you stated, then is what the Founders identified in the Declaration of Independence a falsehood.
Yes or no?
It's a simple question and a simple answer.
my answer is no, what they Identified is exactly what they stated, "we hold these truths to be self evident". With the logical conclusion being any man-made malum prohibitum law does not have the legal authority over that.