# I joined, and pledged support to Yes California today. **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 11, 2016, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467 "2016-11-11T04:44:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 22
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/421 "2016-11-23T00:03:01Z")
> [@Zero-syde](#): > > There may be a way to thread the needle without defaulting to military force. A military outcome is the _most likely_ result, but that really depends on the scenario in play. I said as much in the other (related) thread: Right now, far less than 50% of Californians support secession. For that to flip to a majority or super majority willing and able to push the issue, the political landscape would have to be _massively_ changed. What’s going on in the other states? The US could crush any individual state, but if it’s exploding at all sides they might be forced to the bargaining table without firing a shot. > > Most of these are state agencies. As we’re assuming at _least_ a majority of Californians are in favor of the secession as would be required for this referendum to even matter, it stands to reason that the majority of these agencies would also align with the secessionists. > The FBI wouldn’t have the manpower to deal with that big of a population. It almost certainly would come down to the military for threat of force. But you’re correct in that the threat is there. > > While I think Morgensten’s chosen avenue of approach is full of holes, comparing it to sovereign citizenry is like criticizing Trump’s presidential run on the grounds that his shoes resemble Hitlers. The argument itself is nonsensically flawed (massive false equivalence) and hardly begins to address any real issue. The point, which was directed at Morgenstern, is that contrary to force being rarely used for compliance force is pervasive. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/422 "2016-11-23T00:12:47Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > I would expect that -(assuming)- this passes, there will be a list of countries ready to recognize CA as an independent nation, further complicating the issues faced by the US. This is wonderfully naive. Excepting countries run by crazy dictators, like North Korea, I bet no country would recognize California unless the US Government first agreed to independence. Because recognizing California, if the USG disputed its independence, would jeopardize a country’s relations with the US, which is a much much bigger deal. See for example how many countries recognize Taiwan. (Though there is a little more nuance there, same general point applies.) ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/423 "2016-11-23T00:38:46Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > An interesting fact to litigate. Let’s take a step back, then, because I’ve tried to explain things but I guess what I should be doing is querying you as to your position here. So let me do that. > [@](#): > > But there’s a problem. > > If it’s litigated in Federal court, that will proves CA isn’t self-governed, but the people are subject to an authority, and judges, that they most likely never voted for. So is it your assertion that if State decisions are litigated in Federal courts, that is prima facie a violation of the UN Charter’s provision on self-determination? If this is your belief, explain to me what evidence you have to support this. There are many federal states in the world, I’d be interested of an example of the UN addressing such a concern from one of those. > [@](#): > > If it’s litigated in an international tribunal, well, sort of proves CA is independent. What international tribunal do you imagine would hear such a case? > [@](#): > > I would expect that -(assuming)- this passes, there will be a list of countries ready to recognize CA as an independent nation, further complicating the issues faced by the US. Why do you believe this? What would make California different from Tibet? From Tamil Eelam? From Transnistria? From South Ossetia? The UN does not recognize any of these countries as independent, self-governing states. > [@](#): > > I think a much better road for the US would be to recognize CA, bond with CA, and work with RoCA for the benefit of both nations. Let’s explore that, shall we. What do you believe the negatives would be for the United States in just ignoring California’s desire for independence, playing out my scenario where likely the matter is quashed in Federal court and has no legal standing under domestic law, and expects California to continue on as it has? As a point of reference I’d suggest comparing it to Tibet. You have made the argument that not only does California have a right to secede based on the UN Charter, but that it would cause big problems for the United States to not recognize this right. So let’s compare that to China and Tibet. China invaded independent Tibet in 1950–the UN was specifically formed to combat such territorial aggression. The UN largely did nothing at the time. The first UN response was in 1959, when the UN General Assembly issued its first resolution on Tibet. This resolution “affirmed the importance of human rights” and affirmed the “importance of religious freedom in Tibet.” That was basically all it did. It didn’t denounce the PRC, it didn’t suggest any actions be taken to support Tibetan independence or etc. It didn’t even denounce the ten year old military invasion and occupation of what had been a free and sovereign state. In 1961, the GA issued another resolution on Tibet. This one was stronger, it said that conditions in Tibet with regard to religious liberty were “deplorable” and it "Solemnly renews its call for the cessation of practices which deprive the Tibetan people of their fundamental human rights and freedoms, including their right to self-determination; " This statement had no material impact on China, the world, or anything really. In 1965, the GA issued another resolution basically saying the same thing as the 1961 resolution, and also added that it “implored states” to “use their best endeavors” to achieve the purposes of the resolution. This resolution had no material impact on the PRC or Tibet. Some 6 years later in fact, the President of the United States visits China and “opens it” to the West, and China (the PRC, instead of the ROC and the fictional Chinese government it lead from Taiwan) is admitted into the UN as a full member. The status of Tibet remained unchanged, and in fact was not mentioned again in the UN until 1991. The 1991 resolution laid out two items: > [@](#): > > 1. Calls upon the Government of the People’s Republic of China > fully to respect the fundamental human rights and freedoms of the > Tibetan people; > > 2. Requests the Secretary-General to transmit to the Commission > on Human Rights information on the situation in Tibet provided by > the Government of China and by other reliable sources.” So I’m just curious, what is the basis for believing that a) what you’re suggesting, that the US has to allow California to break away, is reflected at all in the behavior of the UN? Surely if such a thing was required by the UN charter, then a formerly sovereign state _illegally conquered and subjugated_, would be a prime candidate in which we would see the UN do something about such a basic charter violation, no? And b) that not recognizing Californian independence would be a major problem for the United States, when **invading and illegally conquering Tibet, and committing horrific discrimination against its people, religious freedoms, and traditional way of life** brought China no meaningful consequence at all–in fact the United States worked to get the PRC in the UN as a full member. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/424 "2016-11-23T01:01:34Z")
I keep coming back to this thread expecting Morgenstern to finally say something like ‘I know guys, I was just kidding about all of this’, but (s)he’s really hanging in there. It’s almost an admirable act of defiance (defiance of logic, reason, reality, really everything). Morgenstern, if the Academy Awards took nominations from people like me, I’d nominate you for an Oscar in a heartbeat. This is some fantastic acting! ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/425 "2016-11-23T02:00:01Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Let’s take a step back, then, because I’ve tried to explain things but I guess what I should be doing is querying you as to your position here. So let me do that. > > So is it your assertion that if State decisions are litigated in Federal courts, that is prima facie a violation of the UN Charter’s provision on self-determination? If this is your belief, explain to me what evidence you have to support this. There are many federal states in the world, I’d be interested of an example of the UN addressing such a concern from one of those. IF CA is truly self-governed, then CA’s vote would be sufficient for it to leave. IF CA votes to leave, and the Federal government; 1. Reacts with force, as some suggest, Then clearly CA is denied the ability to self-govern. 2. If the US chooses to litigate the decision, and does so in a Federal court, what is the venue of that court? California? DC? Did CA have any say in who litigates or where the venue would be? 3. The evidence is infra. I’m not posting it for the 5th time. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > What international tribunal do you imagine would hear such a case? New territory here. How about one agreeable to both sides. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Why do you believe this? What would make California different from Tibet? From Tamil Eelam? From Transnistria? From South Ossetia? The UN does not recognize any of these countries as independent, self-governing states. The better question is whether or not the UN Charter guarantees them the right to self-govern. I’m not about to spend the time researching their cases. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Let’s explore that, shall we. What do you believe the negatives would be for the United States in just ignoring California’s desire for independence, playing out my scenario where likely the matter is quashed in Federal court and has no legal standing under domestic law, and expects California to continue on as it has? The negatives, (From the US’s perspective)or, my opinion as to what they might be… Fruits, vegetables and nuts would go up in cost. CA is the major producer of many of these. Wine will go up in cost. The majority of wine (88.5%) sold in the US comes from CA. Apple, Facebook, Google, Disney, Cisco are all California companies. Will they stay? Not to mention Hollywood and the movie industry. Milk and dairy products will go up in price. Since 1993 CA has been the biggest producer of these items. Imported goods will cost more for the US. California is the international port. All goods will have to be shipped through CA or shipped to smaller ports in the Northwest. California is the most visited state in the US. Tourism will go up. Your taxes will go up due to California’s lost contribution. CA contributes 13.3% of all Federal taxes collected. If you lose 13.3% of your income, well, you’d notice it. The dollar will probably suffer a devaluation, especially if the US misplays California’s exit. Mishandling the exit cold cause the world economy to falter. The dollar is one of the strongest currencies in the world. See the above comment. The negatives, From CA’s perspective. I’m still thinking of some. I’ll get back to you. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > As a point of reference I’d suggest comparing it to Tibet. You have made the argument that not only does California have a right to secede based on the UN Charter, but that it would cause big problems for the United States to not recognize this right. So let’s compare that to China and Tibet. China invaded independent Tibet in 1950–the UN was specifically formed to combat such territorial aggression. The UN largely did nothing at the time. I’ve never said the UN would intervene. I’ve said the US signed an agreement that specifies the rights of peoples to be self-governed. If we meet that criteria, and I believe we do, then the US has to either live up to their agreement, or not. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > The first UN response was in 1959, when the UN General Assembly issued its first resolution on Tibet. This resolution “affirmed the importance of human rights” and affirmed the “importance of religious freedom in Tibet.” That was basically all it did. It didn’t denounce the PRC, it didn’t suggest any actions be taken to support Tibetan independence or etc. It didn’t even denounce the ten year old military invasion and occupation of what had been a free and sovereign state. Again, we don’t expect to need military assistance. No one is talking violence in this. We’re relying on the US keeping it’s promise to the world, the one it signed and congress ratified. … > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > So I’m just curious, what is the basis for believing that a) what you’re suggesting, that the US has to allow California to break away, is reflected at all in the behavior of the UN? Surely if such a thing was required by the UN charter, then a formerly sovereign state _illegally conquered and subjugated_, would be a prime candidate in which we would see the UN do something about such a basic charter violation, no? And b) that not recognizing Californian independence would be a major problem for the United States, when **invading and illegally conquering Tibet, and committing horrific discrimination against its people, religious freedoms, and traditional way of life** brought China no meaningful consequence at all–in fact the United States worked to get the PRC in the UN as a full member. We expect the US to honor the agreement it signed and congress ratified. If they fail to honor it, then it’s clear we’re denied our right to self-govern under those terms. If they honor it, then we work together to resolve the issues that I listed as negative above for the benefit of both parties. All we’re asking of the US is that it honor the promise it made to the world when it sicgned the charter. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/426 "2016-11-23T02:08:06Z")
So, let’s see if I got this right: If CA secedes, US is pretty much forced to recognize CA as both independent state and co-equal because of a signature on a charter. If the US violates the charter, then the US will find itself in a shooting war with the rest of the UN nations, which is something the US will prevent at all costs… that’s the plan, right? ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/427 "2016-11-23T02:17:31Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I keep coming back to this thread expecting Morgenstern to finally say something like ‘I know guys, I was just kidding about all of this’, but (s)he’s really hanging in there. It’s almost an admirable act of defiance (defiance of logic, reason, reality, really everything). Morgenstern, if the Academy Awards took nominations from people like me, I’d nominate you for an Oscar in a heartbeat. This is some fantastic acting! Thank you. Isn’t the Oscar presented in Hollywood, RoCA? I’d like you to be there, is your passport up to date? 🙂 Here’s the official description of the referendum. CALEXIT: The California Independence Plebiscite of 2019 Further down… describes the purpose is to amend the CA Constitution and the CA Election code… section… 22004, the Independence Plebiscite shall constitute a Declaration of Independence from the United States of America… It goes on to require a 50% voter turnout and a 55% approval. An uphill battle but not an impossible one. Coming March 2019. ---
**Author:** ![JackieLikesVariety](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackielikesvariety/32/296_2.png) [@JackieLikesVariety](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JackieLikesVariety)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/428 "2016-11-23T02:23:02Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > So, let’s see if I got this right: > > If CA secedes, US is pretty much forced to recognize CA as both independent state and co-equal because of a signature on a charter. If the US violates the charter, then the US will find itself in a shooting war with the rest of the UN nations, which is something the US will prevent at all costs… that’s the plan, right? that’s about the plan, isn’t it? but I feel like I’m on California’s side, they are a spunky state and I wish them well. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/429 "2016-11-23T02:26:51Z")
**M** - do you think all political subdivisions of every country have a right to “self-govern” in all respects? You are asserting that such a right was created by the UN Charter, right? Do my neighbors and I have an inalienable right to assert self-governance on our block that the United States is forced to respect? As in, we can simply declare our fifteen or so houses to be independent of the Federal government? Finally, do you believe that the UN Charter has effectively outlawed the federal system of government in which no political subdivision has total control of all aspects of governance? ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/430 "2016-11-23T02:28:57Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Thank you. Isn’t the Oscar presented in Hollywood, RoCA? I’d like you to be there, is your passport up to date? 🙂 > > Here’s the official description of the referendum. > > CALEXIT: The California Independence Plebiscite of 2019 > > Further down… describes the purpose is to amend the CA Constitution and the CA > Election code… section… > > 22004, the Independence Plebiscite shall constitute a Declaration of Independence from the United States of America… > > It goes on to require a 50% voter turnout and a 55% approval. An uphill battle but not an impossible one. > > Coming March 2019. You haven’t addressed in any real detail what happens when administrative boundaries within California assert their right to self government. And nowhere in the UN or anywhere does it say that one is allowed dominance over every other political subdivision in order to be considered self governing. The fact that the people in each state participate in self governance in a real way undercuts whatever argument you are trying to make. And this doesn’t even address the fact that the UN can’t do a damn thing to the big 5. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/431 "2016-11-23T02:30:38Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > **M** - do you think all political subdivisions of every country have a right to “self-govern” in all respects? > > You are asserting that such a right was created by the UN Charter, right? > > Do my neighbors and I have an inalienable right to assert self-governance on our block that the United States is forced to respect? As in, we can simply declare our fifteen or so houses to be independent of the Federal government? > > Finally, do you believe that the UN Charter has effectively outlawed the federal system of government in which no political subdivision has total control of all aspects of governance? I got my own octopus sovereign flag. I wonder if I can avoid federal taxes this year. The UN says I can. And the USA doesn’t want to piss off the world. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/432 "2016-11-23T02:36:21Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > **M** - do you think all political subdivisions of every country have a right to “self-govern” in all respects? What is the basis of your independence. CA is a state. A state is given rights by the US Constitution. In fact, it’s given all rights not reserved to the federal government by the constitution. Including the right to referendums. > [@Ravenman](#): > > You are asserting that such a right was created by the UN Charter, right? I don’t want to post this for the 5th time. I’ve posted the language infra, probably a page or two back. > [@Ravenman](#): > > Do my neighbors and I have an inalienable right to assert self-governance on our block that the United States is forced to respect? As in, we can simply declare our fifteen or so houses to be independent of the Federal government? Are you a state with rights guaranteed by the Federal government. California is an independent (\ [@Ravenman](#): > > Finally, do you believe that the UN Charter has effectively outlawed the federal system of government in which no political subdivision has total control of all aspects of governance? Nothing has been outlawed with respect to this. We’re just asking that the US honor a promise it made to the world. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/433 "2016-11-23T02:47:29Z")
So because states have been given LIMITED rights by the Constitution - which doesn’t include the ability to conduct any kind of foreign relations by the way - the UN Charter somehow seizes on the limited government provided to states and protects their ability to gain all political rights under the sun? But the Tenth Amendment reserves rights to states OR the people. Again, if my neighbors and I have rights not specifically delegated to the Federal government, why aren’t we protected by this mystery clause of the UN Charter? Please stop using the term “infra.” Please. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/434 "2016-11-23T02:59:11Z")
**M** - disregard my last post. It was essentially argumentative. But this question I would like you to answer. Probably the backbone of your claim is that California has certain rights bestowed by treaty because it is a non-self-governing territory. It just so happens that the UN has a working group that establishes a list of such territories. Here it is: [http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml](http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml) California is not on that list. No state is on that list. No non-US province, prefecture, region, county, or other incorporated subdivision of country is on that list. It consists entirely of former colonies, disputed territories, and subdivisions that are denied representation in just a couple national governments. Now that you know that the UN does not consider California an entity subject to Chapter 11, what do you think this means for your claim? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/435 "2016-11-23T03:02:50Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Thank you. Isn’t the Oscar presented in Hollywood, RoCA? I’d like you to be there, is your passport up to date? 🙂 It does so happen to be current, but I’m not worried if it expires. I’m quite certain that I won’t need a passport to travel to California anytime in my lifetime. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/436 "2016-11-23T03:06:27Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > **M** - disregard my last post. It was essentially argumentative. But this question I would like you to answer. > > Probably the backbone of your claim is that California has certain rights bestowed by treaty because it is a non-self-governing territory. > > It just so happens that the UN has a working group that establishes a list of such territories. Here it is: > > [http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml](http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml) > > California is not on that list. No state is on that list. No non-US province, prefecture, region, county, or other incorporated subdivision of country is on that list. It consists entirely of former colonies, disputed territories, and subdivisions that are denied representation in just a couple national governments. > > Now that you know that the UN does not consider California an entity subject to Chapter 11, what do you think this means for your claim? It looks like #CalExit is right out, but #GuamExit on the other hand has a bright future. Hey, all you liberal Californians that want out: MOVE TO GUAM!!! ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/437 "2016-11-23T03:15:41Z")
I’ve answered the same question several times. Actually, I’ve mixed infra with supra, supra being that’s it’s already been answered. My bad, it’s been a busy day getting ready for Thanksgiving. I’m not going to post things every time someone comes with the same question. Sorry, but it’s just too much effort on my part. I’ve already mentally filtered the static from the thread and am responding to those with legitimate comments and questions. The Constitution vests in the states all powers not reserved by to the Feds. Secession is not mentioned. Texas v. White I believe, is the case many are citing as stating secession is illegal unless Congress approves it. It doesn’t not say secession is not possible. We’re saying congress approved it when it ratified the UN Charter. Now, assume CA votes for independence. Congress is faced with a dilemma. Honor their promise to the world with respect ti independence to people who have legitimately voted to be free, and wish CA well, or become a center state hypocrite forever losing the right to condemn any nation for human right violations. Why, because the US is a signatory to an international agreement that specifies the rights of people to be self-governing. This is an uphill battle, but this way is so much better than the last time the 13 colonies did a similar thing with loaded muskets. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/438 "2016-11-23T03:20:46Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > **M** - disregard my last post. It was essentially argumentative. But this question I would like you to answer. > > Probably the backbone of your claim is that California has certain rights bestowed by treaty because it is a non-self-governing territory. > > It just so happens that the UN has a working group that establishes a list of such territories. Here it is: > > [http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml](http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml) > > California is not on that list. No state is on that list. No non-US province, prefecture, region, county, or other incorporated subdivision of country is on that list. It consists entirely of former colonies, disputed territories, and subdivisions that are denied representation in just a couple national governments. > > Now that you know that the UN does not consider California an entity subject to Chapter 11, what do you think this means for your claim? The questions is whether we qualify to be on that list, not whether we’re on it. Of course no state is on that list now. No state has raised the argument that CA is raising, or made the claim that CA is making. No vote has occurred. Do you think an affirmative vote for independence by CA will change that list? It will mean CA meets the criteria to be on that list. If it meets the criteria for inclusion, what do you think the UN will do to that list? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/439 "2016-11-23T03:28:22Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > The questions is whether we qualify to be on that list, not whether we’re on it. Of course no state is on that list now. No state has raised the argument that CA is raising, or made the claim that CA is making. No vote has occurred. Do you think an affirmative vote for independence by CA will change that list? It will mean CA meets the criteria to be on that list. If it meets the criteria for inclusion, what do you think the UN will do to that list? The list - and the entire term- is about goddamn colonies, not states with whiny voters. No matter how much you feel treated unfairly, you don’t live in a colony. You don’t. Get over it. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/440 "2016-11-23T03:38:58Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > The list - and the entire term- is about goddamn colonies, not states with whiny voters. > > No matter how much you feel treated unfairly, you don’t live in a colony. You don’t. Get over it. Once again, from Chapter 11 of the UN charter. \*Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples \*\*have not yet attained a full measure of self-government \*_recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:_ emph mine. and - b. **to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions,** according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement;\* emph mine. Show me where it says their \*list \*is the whole of this? Now we’re back to the argument of self-government yes or no. We’ve made a circle here, it is now complete. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467.md?page=23)