# 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:** 23
**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, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/441 "2016-11-23T03:41:17Z")
No no no, don’t “get over it”. Move to Guam! It’s the only way to be sure you can finally be free and independent. ---
**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, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/442 "2016-11-23T03:44:09Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > We’re saying congress approved it when it ratified the UN Charter. This is certainly a novel interpretation. I look forward to reading the briefs and court rulings. ---
**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, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/443 "2016-11-23T03:50:20Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > 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. Non-self-governing territory has a specific meaning that you are not aware of. Hawaii and Alaska used to be in this status. When they were territories and had no representation in our national government. When were they removed from this status? When they became states. There’s literally dozens of examples of colonies and territories removed from this status because they became incorporated into a country, as a state or province or whatnot. In contrast, integral areas of countries (not colonies!) that sought and achieved independence - like South Sudan, East Timor, Kosovo, Montenegro - were never on the list. Do you get that? I’ll repeat this again: non-self-governing territories are basically colonies. They are not states with unhappy voters. Period. End of discussion. Supra. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/444 "2016-11-23T04:25:51Z")
> [@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? But, California is self governing in a way that even like Guam isn’t. California elects its own state government. It sends representatives to Congress, which is the national legislature of the US, and those representatives are equal in rights and powers to representatives in every other state. Its people vote for President. It seems like most of the complaints on the #YesCalfornia people are that California’s on the west coast, and enough votes are counted from states further east that by the time California’s votes are recorded, the election has a winner, and also that the US has policies that the people of California don’t like. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/445 "2016-11-23T04:58:21Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > No no no, don’t “get over it”. Move to Guam! It’s the only way to be sure you can finally be free and independent. Let’s try not to derail threads on purpose. Guam as a counter example to the substantive issues is fine. Telling other posters to move to Guam is a hijack not conducive to debate. [/moderating] ---
**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, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/446 "2016-11-23T05:26:23Z")
Apologies, I’ll try to rein it in. ---
**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, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/447 "2016-11-23T05:31:52Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > 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. Again you are being intellectually inconsistent. The citizens of the USA have self governance at the federal level. To say otherwise is factually incorrect. Regardless of what state citizens live in they can vote for things at the national level. They are also free to move to any state in the union if they feel that the particular state they are in isn’t optimal. What you are whining about is that California, which you’ve never defined, does not have a monopoly of power in the USA. Why should any arbitrarily defined subgroup that is nowhere near the majority of the population have total control over the whole group. What you are advocating is completely undemocratic. Imagine for a moment we had no state borders. Would any random set of people that shared a common trait of any sort be able to say they weren’t self-governing because they didn’t get their way on every issue 100%? No. Especially not in a nation with strong rule of law. Relatively low corruption. And very high political freedom. This whole want to secede exercise is dishonest and petulant. You can’t even address what happens when counties, regions, or cities within your preferred political boundary decide that THEY want to self govern.:rolleyes: This is what happens when children in adult bodies go to sanctuary colleges with safe spaces. They think they can withdraw from the world. Let somebody else (the USA) pay the rent (provide the defense) and keep all their toys to themselves. That’s not how things work in the grown up world. This petition and the UN aren’t going to do a damn thing. The disgusting thing is this isn’t even limited to the left. We have petulant nuts on the right as well and it’s pathetic. ---
**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, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/448 "2016-11-23T05:35:39Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > But, California is self governing in a way that even like Guam isn’t. California elects its own state government. It sends representatives to Congress, which is the national legislature of the US, and those representatives are equal in rights and powers to representatives in every other state. Its people vote for President. > > It seems like most of the complaints on the #YesCalfornia people are that California’s on the west coast, and enough votes are counted from states further east that by the time California’s votes are recorded, the election has a winner, and also that the US has policies that the people of California don’t like. That’s an illogical argument though. The only reason California’s votes “don’t count” is because they are taken for granted as Democratic. And addition is commutative. ---
**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, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/449 "2016-11-23T05:55:18Z")
[Deleted] ---
**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, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/450 "2016-11-23T06:14:24Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > 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. 1. The UN Charter doesn’t entitle sub-national units to self-government. So that whole point, all of it, is irrelevant. I’ve already linked you to evidence, written by the people who wrote the UN Charter, that make it clear that the right to self-determination does not mean individual units of a country are entitled to a legal right to break away. The right to self-government _is an aspirational goal referring to democratic rule_, it has nothing to do with Quebec or Texas or New South Wales being able to split away from their parent country. This is unambiguous, and part of the record of evidence already supported to disprove your assertion–thus without compelling alternative evidence I definitively believe you are wrong on that point. 1. The President of the United States is required to protect all Californians, because they are American citizens. If the government of California, supported by a 50%+1 majority sought to remove the rights and privileges of American citizens (by removing them from American jurisdiction), the Federal government is required to step in and protect them. The President can no more abandon those Californians in the minority of the referendum that he could abandon California to invasions from foreign enemies. Since we’ve proven definitively that the “self-determination” clause of the UN Charter refers to a democratic system of government as an aspirational goal, and not at all any rights of sub-national units, the U.S. Federal Government stepping in to protect its citizens from an insurrection doesn’t violate any promise made in the UN Charter. 2. Depending on the issue, when the United States sues a state, in most cases the appropriate venue would be a U.S. District Court, the District in which it would be held would be based on various factors, but typically it’d be a California district court. Note that this lawsuit would happen whenever election officials _sought to put_ the matter on the ballot. The U.S. would sue to stop it. A Federal judge would rule almost instantly that you aren’t even allowed to put such a thing in a binding referendum as it’s an act of insurrection and illegal, unconstitutional secession. If California carried forward with the plan any and all officials in violation of the court order would simply be placed under arrest, and the courts would simply order that whoever is left to fill their shoes insures the ballots don’t include the illegal insurrecitonary acts. None of this would get to the point of even attempted secession, by the way, because California would back down (actually California would never vote to leave anyway.) 3. You have no evidence, did not know what the self-determination clause of the UN Charter meant, and after being corrected you’ve refused to acknowledge that the UN specifically has clarified that self-determination doesn’t mean secession of sub-national units. > [@](#): > > New territory here. How about one agreeable to both sides. The correct answer is there is no international body agreeable to both sides, one is a sovereign state, and the other is part of a sovereign state. You would not be permitted to appear in an international body, and the international community would outright risk war with the United States if they even recognized California’s right to appear in any form of international tribunal to seek some sort of hearing for separation from the United 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. It doesn’t, end of discussion. I’ve pointed this out many times now. I’ve included a link showing that it doesn’t. There is no right to self-government for sub-national units. There is an aspirational goal of _self-determination_ for _people_. But it’s really just aspirational. The same time we wrote the UN Charter we were also admitting most of the world’s autocracies to the UN, so obviously we weren’t that serious about it. > [@](#): > > 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. None of those would go up in cost because CA would be part of the United States, and would not be permitted to leave, by force if necessary (it wouldn’t be, California would cave instantly.) > [@](#): > > Wine will go up in cost. The majority of wine (88.5%) sold in the US comes from CA. It would not go up in cost because CA would be part of the United States, and would not be permitted to leave, by force if necessary (it wouldn’t be, California would cave instantly.) > [@](#): > > Apple, Facebook, Google, Disney, Cisco are all California companies. Will they stay? Not to mention Hollywood and the movie industry. They won’t have to decide–they’ll remain in the United States the whole time, since California will never be permitted to leave. > [@](#): > > Milk and dairy products will go up in price. Since 1993 CA has been the biggest producer of these items. None of those would go up in cost because CA would be part of the United States, and would not be permitted to leave, by force if necessary (it wouldn’t be, California would cave instantly.) > [@](#): > > 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. Except California wouldn’t be allowed to leave, so none of this would apply. > [@](#): > > California is the most visited state in the US. Tourism will go up. California wouldn’t be out of the Union. > [@](#): > > 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. Collection of federal taxes would continue as California wouldn’t be allowed to leave. > [@](#): > > The dollar will probably suffer a devaluation, especially if the US misplays California’s exit. There will be no exit and nothing could be misplayed, since the exit wouldn’t happen. > [@](#): > > 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. Except not. > [@](#): > > The negatives, From CA’s perspective. > > I’m still thinking of some. I’ll get back to you. Well, what I actually asked is what would happen if the United States, blocked in court, California’s leaving (U.S. Federal Courts.) Assuming California refused to recognize the validity of these rulings, the U.S. would simply use police power to arrest a bunch of officials in California, and people who knew how to behave would replace them–and we’d continue arresting people in California’s government until whoever was left in charge was such a person. I was asking what were the negatives from the international community if the United States did this–the answer is, there are no negatives. It’d be considered an internal matter, and no foreign power would dare intercede. California would never resist violently. > [@](#): > > 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. We actually do not “have” to live up to it. Saudi Arabia doesn’t, Russia doesn’t, China doesn’t etc. It’s an aspirational clause. But as a matter of fact the U.S. more or less does live up to the “self-determination” clause of the UN Charter–that refers to the rights of the _people to have a say in their government_. It doesn’t refer to the right of “states” to secede from a Federal union. > [@](#): > > 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. It never made a promise to allow secession, and I’ve proven that with a direct link to a document that explains what the self-determination clause meant–drafted **alongside the UN Charter, so that there was no doubt that self-determination didn’t mean secession**. > [@](#): > > 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. You fundamentally don’t know what you’re talking about–and I suspect you never will, so there is nothing the US has to honor that works in the way you think it is. Essentially you’re extremely wrong, and apparently oblivious to the fact. ---
**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, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/451 "2016-11-23T06:20:05Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > 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. And we’re saying you’re wrong because the UN Charter actually clearly has been shown to not allow secession, and the documents I’ve linked to explain specifically that secession of sub-national states is not what is meant by the clause on self-determination. Also the U.S. has spent the last 60 years or so after signing the UN Charter engaging in torture around the world, sponsoring dictators to overthrow democratic governments we dislike, sponsored assassinations, engaged in horribly destructive warfare in Vietnam that unnecessarily killed hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of civilians…and this sovereign citizen nonsense no one cares about is where we became hypocrites on human rights? (And FWIW, I’m a proud American who thinks we’ve made mistakes, and have an obligation to advocate for human rights _regardless_ of our own past and future wrongs on the matter.) ---
**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, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/452 "2016-11-23T06:29:33Z")
Also instructive, [link](http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/68/262), that is the UN Resolution condemning the separation of Crimea from Ukraine. It specifically notes that said separation was invalid _because the referendum was not approved by Ukraine_, which pretty clearly spells out that at least as far as UN Charter and UN law is concerned, simply being in the UN doesn’t entitle sub-national units any right of secession. This is obvious since Ukraine is a UN Charter signatory, and the UN itself has said that the Crimean secession was invalid because the Ukraine did not consent to it, so clearly simply signing the UN Charter is not viewed by the UN General Assembly as “pre-clearance” for national secession votes. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/453 "2016-11-23T11:43:18Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > BTW, it looks like a majority of Californians oppose this plan. Get that? It’s too wacky an idea even for California. > > > [@](#): > > > > only 23 percent of those surveyed backing the idea of California becoming its own country. … another 20 percent are unsure. It’s interesting to see how different people interpret the same poll numbers. I’m surprised that _only_ 57% checked the Don’t\_Want\_to\_Secede box, but **Hurricane** almost seems surprised in the other direction. (I’ll guess that many of the 23% checking Secede were piqued or whimsical and the number would be less when sobriety is restored.) I recall a poll in India where _“only”_ 41% supported a pogrom (or such) against Muslims. The headline was _“Indians want religious peace.”_ :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/454 "2016-11-23T12:35:40Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > I already feel better by just signing up and pledging to support them. I’m hoping this comes to be. I know this may never happen, but just the thought of standing in the Republic of California and laughing at the 49 states of America gives me quite a rush. > > [http://www.yescalifornia.org/](http://www.yescalifornia.org/) Dude, you are hitching a lame horse to that wagon. Nobody is going to secede. If they were, Texas would have done it a long time ago. The issue was decided by the Civil War. It’s dead. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/455 "2016-11-23T14:35:56Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > You don’t know anything about Chinese politics or Russian for that matter if you think they are pro-secession. And they don’t have the navy to intervene if they wanted to. Yeah, it’s amusing following this thread to see how it develops. Expecting China and Russia to support secession movements when they actively suppress secession movements themselves and work to make sure such movements are not given international approval is… interesting. About as interesting as the idea that the UN would somehow force the US to accept CA independence when the US has a veto on UN actions. Or the idea that CA independence is absolutely, positively allowed to happen because self-determination… but that parts of CA that don’t like the new CA won’t also just split away themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/456 "2016-11-23T14:43:07Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > What is the basis of your independence. A moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me. That beats the UN charter all to pieces. Regards, Shodan ---
**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, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/457 "2016-11-23T17:05:54Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > But, California is self governing in a way that even like Guam isn’t. California elects its own state government. It sends representatives to Congress, which is the national legislature of the US, and those representatives are equal in rights and powers to representatives in every other state. Its people vote for President. > > It seems like most of the complaints on the #YesCalfornia people are that California’s on the west coast, and enough votes are counted from states further east that by the time California’s votes are recorded, the election has a winner, and also that the US has policies that the people of California don’t like. Your first statement is the issue as a whole. This is it, this is all of it. Is California self-governing? California voters can pass legislation that can be overruled by Federal judges, thus invalidating the will of CA voters. Those judges can be appointed by individuals who CA residents never had an opportunity to vote for. If the will of the voters can be overturned by authority that CA never voted for, then CA is not self-governed. CA pays an more for federal benefits than it receives, yet has basically no say in where and how the money is spent. Self-governing? The ultimate proof of a non-ability to self-govern would be the US rejection CA’s referendum of independence. Directly ignoring the will of the CA people assuming an affirmative vote. If CA was truly self-governing then the vote would be the end of the issue. IF CA is not self-governed, then if qualifies under Chapter 11 of the UN charter as a people seeking independence and the ability to self-govern. CA has the right to vote on secession. That vote also requires the governor to seek UN recolonization of its struggle for independence. Note that, unlike what many have said, there is NO provision for seeking assistance of Russia or China. Russia and China are not players in this action. Neither is [list of all other contrives in the world]. Secession is not mentioned in the US Constitution. The 10th Amendment vests all powers in the states not specifically given the Federal government. It does not mention secession. Texas v White is the post civil war case that, apparently, no one here has read yet quote as the reason this will never happen. They are wrong. T v.W does NOT say secession is NOT possible, it says unilateral secession is not legal _UNLESS_ congress approves the secession. That’s quite different than merely saying it is illegal. Will congress approve the secession? (assuming an affirmative vote) The US signed, _and Congress ratified_ the UN Charter. Chapter 11 of which provides for and the US promised to SUPPORT the efforts of a people to gain independence. It does not specify (list) the location of those people nor their nationality. Congress has promised to the world by ratifying this charter that it will act in a certain way in this event. Will Congress keep its promise to the world? Congress has more to lose by not keeping their word than keeping it. If Congress fails to keep its promised obligation, then the reputation of the US will suffer world wide. I would expect world opinion would see the US as an unreliable nation of hypocrites. This could severely damage the international reputation of the US. Will CA survive as an independent nation? Absolutely. Without a doubt. Ignore the chatter about water rights, trade, bombing our ports and port cities, nuclear strikes on the “rebellious” Californian’s, armed military intervention etc. None of that will happen. At the time CA is independent, any act of war against CA will be viewed internationally as an illegal action. The US has more to lose than to gain. Are there problems? Yes. The referendum requires 50% voter participation in a off year election. This may be difficult. If Trump is as bad as expected, this may motivate a large voter turn out. 55% voter approval is required. Typically successful ballot initiatives pass by more than this percentage here. So how does the US feel about states seceding? 35% of the people in the southwestern states support a state’s right to succeed. AZ, NM and TX are the highest. 24% in CA support secession, yet many of those have not heard of YesCalifornia. We have 2 years change that. Typically, other states run about 22 to 23% in favor of a states right to secede. I strongly suspect the the next 2 years will see these numbers change dramatically as the new administration fails and flounders on so many issues. Now, this should quash the “the civil war” resolved the secession issue. It didn’t. It opened the door to the way it must be done. Texas v. White. > [@septimus](#): > > … > It’s interesting to see how different people interpret the same poll numbers. I’m surprised that only 57% checked the Don’t\_Want\_to\_Secede box, but Hurricane almost seems surprised in the other direction. (I’ll guess that many of the 23% checking Secede were piqued or whimsical and the number would be less when sobriety is restored.)… Again, this is not an anti-Trump measure. Although that alone should be sufficient for most states to join it. No one has heaerd of YesCalifornia, even in CA. What other states think is immaterial. We have 2 years to fix this. I assure you , the numbers will be much different in March of 2019. > [@pantastic](#): > > Yeah, it’s amusing following this thread to see how it develops. Expecting China and Russia to support secession movements when they actively suppress secession movements themselves and work to make sure such movements are not given international approval is… interesting… Russia and China’s help is neither expected nor mentioned. Although I would expect the to be very vocal about the US if Congress fails to heep it’s promise to the world under Chapter 11. [quote=Martin Hyde] Also instructive, link, that is the UN Resolution condemning the separation of Crimea from Ukraine. It specifically notes that said separation was invalid because the referendum was not approved by Ukraine, … [quote] Was the Ukraine a signatory to the UN Charter? No, there might be your problem. > [@Martin Hyde](#): > > Also the U.S. has spent the last 60 years or so after signing the UN Charter engaging in torture around the world, sponsoring dictators to overthrow democratic governments we dislike, sponsored assassinations, engaged in horribly destructive warfare in Vietnam that unnecessarily killed hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of civilians…and this sovereign citizen nonsense no one cares about is where we became hypocrites on human rights? … Another reason to secede. Another reason for our allies to turn their backs on us in pour time of need. Another reason for our enemies to point at us and call us hypocritical. Do you really expect the US to be here forever? It won’t, no government ever has. Calexit is a start. Even if it fails, the movement has stated. I am eligible for SAR membership due to a distant relative who had the courage to stand up and sign a pledge of allegiance to the colonies (Massachusetts) in the 1770s. (he was actually an elderly shop keeper, but he was willing to stand up for what he believed in) By signing that document he subjected himself to the death penalty for treason. He signed nonetheless. He pledged to fight for independence with his musket and his efforts. I’m pledging to fight with my vote. Times have changed. We have means in place to change by peaceful means, by making our opinions heard. Your argument that California will be prevented for leaving by force fails. That’s the last thing the US would do. Not only wold the world condemn the US, but probably the majority of the US would as well. I would be totally ashamed of my government if it invaded Texas and slaughtered Texans for voting to leave the US. But you’re right, the US does very well in guerrilla conflicts. Vietnam comes to mind, the US decided the rights of the Vietnamese people to unify wasn’t good for the US, so we invested almost 60,000 American lives for nothing at all. Sovereign citizen is not a concept or an argument that has come from this side of the argument. It’s not applicable. BTW, what ever happened to those in people in Oregon? Other than the one the Feds shot and killed that is. Waco, Ruby Ridge, the US has president on its side. Kill them before the juries let them go. ---
**Author:** ![scabpicker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scabpicker/32/8268_2.png) [@scabpicker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scabpicker)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/458 "2016-11-23T17:14:44Z")
Yeah, still not convinced the nation is better off without California. You’re going to have to sell this better. Work on this question, because you’ll have to answer it eventually: _What’s in it for the rest of us?_ Because if you don’t want to use your musket, you’ll need to convince the rest of us to let you go. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/459 "2016-11-23T17:15:55Z")
Congress isn’t going to dissolve the United States because you have contempt for democracy and the poor. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/460 "2016-11-23T17:20:16Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Was the Ukraine a signatory to the UN Charter? No, there might be your problem. Ukraine was one of the [original 51 member states of the UN.](http://www.un.org/en/sections/member-states/growth-united-nations-membership-1945-present/index.html) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467.md?page=24)