# 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:** 32
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2016, 9:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/621 "2016-12-31T09:14:27Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > A fair bit of the DoD land is actually along the coast, which I would assume entitles RemainderUS to it’s own territorial waters (admittedly, I’m not up on the specifics of the law of the sea treaty stuff, and I’m not sure it would apply anyways since neither USA nor RoCA have ratified it). Point is: there might not be a need to navigate through California’s territorial waters. In fact, it may be the RoCA that finds itself needing to navigate through RemainderUS’ territorial waters. Or, who knows, they might move the ocean to the other side of California. Or, they could build more land to the west of California and not allow CA access to the Ocean. They could even pass federal legislation declaring that all the oceans are burning our CA dog. (as long as we’re playing the wild ass guess game) > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’m from Utah. I’m intimately-acquainted with what your typical BLM plot of land is like. I’m not talking about building a utopia there, I’m talking about America retaining ownership of it. Own away. Wait, you don’t expect CA to provide municipal services and police protection, as well as fighting those friggen yearly fires do you? You’re going to take care of all that right, and be a good neighbor? Water, and electricity you can import I suppose, and you can pack up your sewage and ship it back east, or do you expect CA to pay for all that? Yes, I think there would be room for treaties. I strongly suspect the US will want treaties. Treaties that cover all this. Treaties that prevent things like CA leasing the northwest end of Catalina Island to a Chinese concern to build a radar facilities to track Climate change in this hemisphere. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2016, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/622 "2016-12-31T15:07:14Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > I strongly suspect the US will want treaties. Treaties that cover all this. Treaties that prevent things like CA leasing the northwest end of Catalina Island to a Chinese concern to build a radar facilities to track Climate change in this hemisphere. Except you’ve said that Calexit won’t be rebellion or civil war, but will be done by getting the consent of the rest of the US. Which means that it won’t be an independent California negotiating with the US, it will be the State California trying to make deals that will convince the other states that they are better off with California leaving. So in the hypothetical, CA isn’t bargaining as equals, they’re making all of these arrangements while still subject to Federal law and with no way to actually secede unless the terms are good enough for the other states. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2016, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/623 "2016-12-31T16:41:32Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > (as long as we’re playing the wild ass guess game) Isn’t that all you’re doing in this thread? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2016, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/624 "2016-12-31T16:55:55Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Utah has 65% Federal ownership. You okay with that? I hate it, but I recognize it as the reality. I’m actually involved with an organization called the American Lands Council that has been trying to get the Feds to turn over significant portion a of the western states’ land to state control, so I can tell you from personal experience: they’re pretty dead set on not selling or giving the land away. That’s why I brought it up. It would seem to pose a not-insignificant obstacle to Calexit, but you just hand-wave everything away with “treaties”, so i’m less-and-less convinced you’ve given any of this any serious thought. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2016, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/625 "2016-12-31T17:33:52Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Why no civil war? Because it’s not the way we do things in the 2016. As the punch line to the old Lone Ranger joke goes, “what do you mean WE, paleface?” > [@](#): > > You still think secession is illegal, go read Texas v. White. Secession is legal and the Supreme Court has ruled that it’s constitutional under certain circumstances. (Ironically, revolution is one of them, go figure) The Wiki article on Texas v. White says > [@](#): > > In deciding the merits of the bond issue, the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were “absolutely null”. So you need the acquiescence of the rest of the country. If you can’t get it, you can’t secede. You can’t get it. Do the math. Regards, Shodan ---
**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:** [December 31, 2016, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/626 "2016-12-31T18:11:42Z")
Maybe I missed it earlier in the thread - what about the residents of CA that don’t want to secede? If I as a Californian appreciate the federal constitution and the protections it affords me, as a citizen of the US, I’d expect my government to defend my interests. I suppose I’d sell my land to the new Nation of California, for …a bajillion dollars. That’s USD. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2016, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/627 "2016-12-31T18:15:07Z")
What do you do when your state raises your taxes and you don’t want your taxes raised? ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2016, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/628 "2016-12-31T18:24:33Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > … > > The Wiki article on Texas v. White says So you need the acquiescence of the rest of the country. If you can’t get it, you can’t secede. You can’t get it. Do the math. > > Regards, > Shodan Keep reading, you’ll find the relevant part. Regards, My Ass ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2016, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/629 "2016-12-31T18:36:59Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Maybe I missed it earlier in the thread - what about the residents of CA that don’t want to secede? If I as a Californian appreciate the federal constitution and the protections it affords me, as a citizen of the US, I’d expect my government to defend my interests. > > I suppose I’d sell my land to the new Nation of California, for …a bajillion dollars. That’s USD. I didn’t want Trump to be my POTUS either. I’m sort of stuck with it because that’s the way voting works. If you live in CA, you can always vote against it when it appears on the ballot. If you want to remain a US citizen, and live on RoCA, you’re free to. You won’t lose your US citizenship because CA became independent. In fact, you can continue to pay Federal Taxes if you choose not to renounce your US citizenship. \*In 2012, Californians paid $292,563,574,000 in US federal taxes. During that same year we received back approximately $0.78 for every dollar paid while states like Mississippi and Louisiana, that constantly complain about “entitlements,” got more that $2 for every $1 they paid. That extra money came out of our pockets. \* Who is it again that’s protecting your (our) interest? Without much effort at all on the part of promoting this, CalExit polls show 41% of Californians support seceding. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2016, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/630 "2016-12-31T18:38:55Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Keep reading, you’ll find the relevant part. > > Regards, > My Ass I’ve read it and can’t find it. Yes, there is mention that revolution can allow secession, but that is a simple acknowledgement that military success trumps existing law. The opinion is replete with declarations that unilateral secession by any state is illegal and void. Could you point to what you are arguing? ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2016, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/631 "2016-12-31T18:44:36Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > What do you do when your state raises your taxes and you don’t want your taxes raised? What do you do when your taxes are raised and you don’t want them raised now? ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2016, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/632 "2016-12-31T18:51:27Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I’ve read it and can’t find it. Yes, there is mention that revolution can allow secession, but that is a simple acknowledgement that military success trumps existing law. The opinion is replete with declarations that unilateral secession by any state is illegal and void. Could you point to what you are arguing? I’ll say again since so many are having trouble finding the relevant part. “_except through revolution or through consent of the States_.” Unanimous consent isn’t required as some seem to think. Will that be east, no it won’t, but it’s no more impossible than a sexual predator, former reality TV star, with 0 political experience becoming President of the US. Give that predator a few months in office and and I’m betting the list of states wanting out grows considerably. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2016, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/633 "2016-12-31T19:06:56Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I hate it, but I recognize it as the reality. I’m actually involved with an organization called the American Lands Council that has been trying to get the Feds to turn over significant portion a of the western states’ land to state control, so I can tell you from personal experience: they’re pretty dead set on not selling or giving the land away. That’s why I brought it up. It would seem to pose a not-insignificant obstacle to Calexit, but you just hand-wave everything away with “treaties”, so i’m less-and-less convinced you’ve given any of this any serious thought. I think we agree on this for the most part. However, IF CA were an independent nation, the bargaining point would change significantly. I honestly believe the matter would end up in court, but problem is, whose court? Interestingly, the Feds do sell land back. MCAS El Toro for one was sold back. (a former Marine Corps base in CA) Naval Training Center in San Diego no longer under Fed jurisdiction, but I’m unsure if that was a lease or a sale. The US really didn’t want the obligation of maintaining and policing the abandoned property. Also George Air Force Base, San Bernardino County, Fort Ord, in Monterey County, Castle Air Force in Merced County area all closed. Plus more I’m sure. I really don’t know what the current status those bases is, but I’d bet they were sold, leased or given to local authorities. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2016, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/634 "2016-12-31T19:10:27Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > I’ll say again since so many are having trouble finding the relevant part. > > “_except through revolution or through consent of the States_.” > > Unanimous consent isn’t required as some seem to think. Will that be east, no it won’t, but it’s no more impossible than a sexual predator, former reality TV star, with 0 political experience becoming President of the US. > > Give that predator a few months in office and and I’m betting the list of states wanting out grows considerably. You would need 2/3 of each house of congress and 3/4 of the states to support it. You don’t even have 2/3 of your own state to support it, even if you count every HRC vote as a vote for secession. Even if you did get a few extra votes and the rest of the nation acquiesced, your state would be balkanized. 31 counties for HRC and 25 for Trump. During the civil war, the entire south, almost unanimously (of course, counting only those who could vote) wanted to secede and we see how well that worked out. Is this thread a joke or are you serious about this effort? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2016, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/635 "2016-12-31T19:11:42Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Give that predator a few months in office and and I’m betting the list of states wanting out grows considerably. Would you care to wager actual USD that no other American state joins California in voting in favor of secession anytime in the next 8 years? ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2016, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/636 "2016-12-31T19:28:52Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > You would need 2/3 of each house of congress and 3/4 of the states to support it. You don’t even have 2/3 of your own state to support it, even if you count every HRC vote as a vote for secession. We already covered that. > [@UltraVires](#): > > Even if you did get a few extra votes and the rest of the nation acquiesced, your state would be balkanized. 31 counties for HRC and 25 for Trump. Not at all. CA cast 4 million more votes for HRC than they did for the orange maniac. HRC, nationally received less than 3 million votes more than OM. Democratic; Hillary Clinton, 8,753,788 Republican; Donald Trump, 4,483,810 Now, look at the Total results. Trump; 62,979,879 Hillary Clinton; 65,844,954 So if the US cast 3 million more for HRC, and 4 million of those votes came from CA…see where this is going. It appears CA was just not strong enough to save the nation from this National Nightmare 1.0. CA is pretty united. You point is of no concern. > [@UltraVires](#): > > During the civil war, the entire south, almost unanimously (of course, counting only those who could vote) wanted to secede and we see how well that worked out. Irrelevant. Things and methods are different today. > [@UltraVires](#): > > Is this thread a joke or are you serious about this effort? 41% of CA people surveyed support the idea, and that’s with very little public exposure. ---
**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:** [December 31, 2016, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/637 "2016-12-31T19:38:47Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > I didn’t want Trump to be my POTUS either. I’m sort of stuck with it because that’s the way voting works. If you live in CA, you can always vote against it when it appears on the ballot. > > If you want to remain a US citizen, and live on RoCA, you’re free to. You won’t lose your US citizenship because CA became independent. In fact, you can continue to pay Federal Taxes if you choose not to renounce your US citizenship. > \*In 2012, Californians paid $292,563,574,000 in US federal taxes. During that same year we received back approximately $0.78 for every dollar paid while states like Mississippi and Louisiana, that constantly complain about “entitlements,” got more that $2 for every $1 they paid. That extra money came out of our pockets. \* > > Who is it again that’s protecting your (our) interest? I’m not seeing how that is responsive to my question. I’m not describing taxes or what not. If CalExit were to succeed, I assume there would be some kind of constitution adopted. I happen to like the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution. That seems to be an unresolvable conflict. In that as a citizen of the U.S., I expect them to protect my interests and defend me from foreign threats. A new CA annexing my land for their own purposes would constitute one of those threats. Granted, if the U.S. constitution were to be amended to allow the action you contemplate then I suppose the U.S. would acquiesce - but not until then. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2016, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/638 "2016-12-31T20:04:27Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I’m not seeing how that is responsive to my question. I’m not describing taxes or what not. If CalExit were to succeed, I assume there would be some kind of constitution adopted. I happen to like the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution. That seems to be an unresolvable conflict. In that as a citizen of the U.S., I expect them to protect my interests and defend me from foreign threats. A new CA annexing my land for their own purposes would constitute one of those threats. > > Granted, if the U.S. constitution were to be amended to allow the action you contemplate then I suppose the U.S. would acquiesce - but not until then. That has been defined by SCOTUS in _Texas v White_, and the framework for secession is provided therein. SCOTUS is the ultimate authority on the US Constitution, so it doesn’t appear that there is any arguable Constitutional prohibition to secession, in fact, none can be found in the document itself. From the Vermont secession movement. [The Constitutionality of Secession - Vermont Republic](http://vermontrepublic.org/the-constitutionality-of-secession/) \*According to the tenth amendment to the Constitution, anything that is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution is allowed. Therefore, all states have a Constitutional right to secede. However, two new constitutional questions concerning secession emerged shortly after the Civil War ended… \* Yes, Vermont has a movement as does Alaska ( Alaskan Independence Party) WA & OR, (Cascadia Independence Movement) HA, (Hawaii Independence Party) NH (Foundation for New Hampshire Independence) and TX (Texas Nationalist Movement). If you’re referring to the CA Constitution, CalExit will not repeal a provision of the constitution, instead, it will amend it to conform with the desired goal. ---
**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:** [December 31, 2016, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/639 "2016-12-31T20:53:32Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > That has been defined by SCOTUS in _Texas v White_, and the framework for secession is provided therein. SCOTUS is the ultimate authority on the US Constitution, so it doesn’t appear that there is any arguable Constitutional prohibition to secession, in fact, none can be found in the document itself. > > From the Vermont secession movement. [The Constitutionality of Secession - Vermont Republic](http://vermontrepublic.org/the-constitutionality-of-secession/) > > \*According to the tenth amendment to the Constitution, anything that is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution is allowed. Therefore, all states have a Constitutional right to secede. However, two new constitutional questions concerning secession emerged shortly after the Civil War ended… > \* Your interpretations of these cases and the 10th amendment is certainly novel, if not without basis. From [Texas v White](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/74/700): > [@](#): > > The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. **By these, the Union was solemnly declared to “be perpetual.” And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained “to form a more perfect Union.” It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?** (my bold) Indissoluble. To say that that this case which declares the union to be indissoluble to contain the framework for succession is strange. Further: > [@](#): > > When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. **There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.** (my bold) Perhaps this is what you were referring to: \* ‘except through revolution or through consent of the States’.\* You don’t seem to be proposing revolution, so are you suggesting through consent of the States? That would require constitutional amendment, since you see, the Union is indissoluble. That dispenses with Texas v White. Now onto the 10th amendment. The idea that anything not expressly prohibited is allowed is not an accurate interpretation. The 10th has two clauses: _The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people._ The first essentially says the federal powers are limited to only the powers granted in the Constitution. The second says that the states and people may exercise their reserved powers. Secession is not among them. > [@Morgenstern](#): > > If you’re referring to the CA Constitution, CalExit will not repeal a provision of the constitution, instead, it will amend it to conform with the desired goal. I’m referring to the U.S. Constitution. The one that says the U.S. government has the power to suppress insurrections. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2016, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/640 "2016-12-31T21:54:02Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > … > The first essentially says the federal powers are limited to only the powers granted in the Constitution. The second says that the states and people may exercise their reserved powers. Secession is not among them. Right! Secession isn’t even mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore it, or preventing it, must not be a reserved power. \*“New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.” \* Seems they omitted a provision in that paragraph re: no state shall be permitted to withdraw from the union once admitted. Again, it’s silent on the matter. > [@Bone](#): > > I’m referring to the U.S. Constitution. The one that says the U.S. government has the power to suppress insurrections. Insurrection; _a violent uprising against an authority or government._ For the 500th time, there is no fucking violence involved in this. Voting and working within the framework of Texas v White is absolutely permissible, constitutional and legal. That should be clear by now. SCOTUS has ruled on the point. \*“When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.” \* emph mine. Do we really need to keep revisiting this or shall we simply accept that SCOTUS has ruled on this and provided the framework for secession. I find it ironic that SCOTUS finds rebellion constitutional in secession efforts. But none the less, a lawful avenue for secession is provided. This is unarguable. ETA, a quick goofle search provides several legal authorities agreeing that this is in fact an avenue, albeit a hard one to follow. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467.md?page=31) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467.md?page=33)