In 2007 Californias governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a global warming treaty with the United Kingdom’s Prime Minister Tony Blair
Can a non-sovereign state do this ?
According to Californian independence groups, this is seen as an important step towards independence for California
Will USA turn into a group of indenpendent states in a not to distant future?
Section 10 of Article I of the US Constitution says: “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance or Confederation; …”, so apparently no, California can’t have a treaty with the United Kingdom.
It CAN do this, the treaty was apparently actually signed, but it’s a meaningless gesture because it violates the US constitution.
Except, they’re delusional. “California independence groups” don’t exist, outside of one or two guys with a website and an email address.
No. No it won’t.
See how easy these questions are to answer?
I’m not so sure that would qualify as a treaty, but as a type of trade agreement.
Isn’t a trade agreement between states* a kind of treaty? Or are you arguing that the meaning of “Treaty” is the US Constitution is more limited than the usual one?
I’m just thinking that Governors are always traveling overseas to drum up business. Sometimes tax incentives are offered to locate businesses in a state. All this “treaty” was set up to do was to trade carbon credits. How is that any different than if we set up an agreement to trade oranges for Burberry handbags?
I don’t think ordinary commercial contracts to buy and sell things are what is usually meant by “trade agreements” here. An example of a trade agreement between states would be NAFTA, which definitely is a treaty.
If California and the UK entered into an agreement which could just as easily be entered into by non-government corporations or by ordinary people, then I don’t think it’s a treaty. According to this article, “They agreed to collaborate on research into cleaner-burning fuels and technologies, and look into the possibility of setting up a system whereby polluters could buy and sell the right to emit greenhouse gases.” Ordinary corporations and people can agree to collaborate on research, and can agree to “look into the possibility” of anything, so perhaps this agreement is not a real treaty.
That may be. I don’t know what to call it, but states do offer incentives to business within their borders.
I think the OP needs to establish that what was signed was actually a treaty. His cite isn’t very convincing-- a wikipedia entry with a non-neutrality warning on it.
Actually, under US law, NAFTA is not a treaty. It was never ratified by a 2/3 vote in the Senate. Instead, it is a “congressional-executive agreement,” negotiated by the President with the foreign powers concerned and then implemented by plain federal legislation.
Someone should buy the people of California a history text book, the south already tried it and it didn’t work out.
Someone should do a little research and find out how many people support this effort before that someone lectures “the people of California”. I’ve lived here 25 years and I’ve never heard of the California Independence Movement.
That’s interesting. However, it is an agreement between states that deals with things that only states can do (such as manage international migration and international trade between the countries), so I suspect that at least on some views it’s a treaty.
We operate quietly, in shadows, soon we will strike, severing the ties to the opressive and illegal US regime!!!
The declarations of martial law and the bombings of civillian targets on Mars have forced us to join with them and the colonies at proxima 3 and declare independence!
Hopefully the Minbari will show up and save our ass too.
Long live the Allied States of America!
That hasn’t stopped the Catholic League!
wrong thread - ignore
Good faith agreements between US states and non-US states are nothing out of the ordinary. For example, the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement. Taking such agreements as being examples of deliberate movement toward state secession is just plain silly.
I’m not worried about Schwarzenegger taking California out of the union.
They’ll be back.
What is this, FARK?
Anyway, if anything happened to California, it’d split in half, and that won’t happen, either.
But if it does, I claim Santa Cruz for the North!
Californias treaty with the United Kingdom - on step towards independence?
Well, as a Californian I’m probably not supposed to talk about this, but yes, we are considering letting you become East California. We kind of like you, and we figure you’re about done with the whole royalty thing anyways. If it weren’t for this current real estate thing going on, we’d have already written the check and you’d be getting new passports by now.