あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]nuqqet9k 62 ポイント63 ポイント  (73子コメント)

Yay Scottish independence!

Yay Catalan independence!

Texan independence? Holy shit what a bunch of crazy inbred racist wannabe slave-owner insane dangerous wackjobs.

[–]dangerbird2 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (26子コメント)

The Congress shall have Power… To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

Constitution of the United States of America. Article I, section 8

[–]s1ugg0 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You don't expect people who say they love the constitution to actually read it do you?

[–]saltytrey[S] 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (10子コメント)

The difference is, Scotland is an actual separate country and could legally choose to dissolve their Union with the rest of the the UK.

[–]lunartree 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (9子コメント)

Texas and California historically were separate countries it's just after the civil war America decided to be very clear on its feelings toward separatism. However, I don't give a fuck if they're a fringe group it's their right to free speech and assembly!

[–]dangerbird2 22 ポイント23 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Texas chose to join the United States. it entered with the understanding that the Federal Government had the Constitutional authority to use military force to suppress rebellions, like the one it would take a part in less than two decades after voluntarily joining the union. The only reason Scotland is part of the UK is that its Queen Elizabeth didn't poop out any babies, leading the king of Scotland to inherit England after her death.

[–]jdkeith [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

I thought that the Texas entered on the condition it could secede later. Also there's nothing in the federal constitution banning secession - people merely point to the civil war as deciding that issue. If that's the case, another war could be had to "decide" it another way.

[–]bruceville_road -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The Queen's butt baby.

[–]ShouldBeAnUpvoteGif 24 ポイント25 ポイント  (24子コメント)

It is explicitly banned in the Texas constitution. There is a slight difference there.

[–]lapinrigolo 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (3子コメント)

It's also banned in the Spanish constitution.

[–]ShouldBeAnUpvoteGif -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I did not know that. I dont want to believe you, but I'm too lazy to look it up. So I guess I will just have to believe you.

[–]Vermilion 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It is explicitly banned in the Texas constitution.

Wouldn't you have a meeting to discuss an election to change the constitution?

[–]Codoro 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Texas is pretty much the only state that could become independent.

[–]SpikesHigh 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

'Could' is very different than 'should', especially for the reason's they're giving.

[–]SmithWessonMP -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You forgot "gun nuts".

[–]steavoh -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yay Scottish independence! Yay Catalan independence! Texan independence? Holy shit what a bunch of crazy inbred racist wannabe slave-owner insane dangerous wackjob

To be straight up blunt, all of these are shit. Just that the first two had a more likeable demographic backing them.

[–]StalinWasAJerk -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I mean, secession is kind of a settled issue in America.

Personally, I would love to just let Texas go.