# 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:** 33
**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:** [January 1, 2017, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/641 "2017-01-01T00:01:18Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Right! Secession isn’t even mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore it, or preventing it, must not be a reserved power. No. Secession is not a reserved power of the states. The Union is indissoluble. SCOTUS has ruled on this. And that whole civil war thing. You’ve mentioned Texas v White, but you’ve skipped over that part. Can you address it? > [@](#): > > Insurrection; > _a violent uprising against an authority or government._ [Insurrection](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/insurrection) need not be violent. It could be violent, but it could simply be resistance. > [@](#): > > noun > 1. > an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government. > [@Morgenstern](#): > > 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. It’s really not clear. The only thing that Texas v White talks about in this area is what you’ve quoted, ‘through consent of the states’. Is that the framework you are talking about? If so, that’s really really thin. Can you elaborate how that would work? I think a perfectly acceptable way that could work is through constitutional amendment. The U.S. Constitution that is. If it’s amended to allow secession then you’re in business. Without an amendment however, it’s premature to say there exists a framework for secession. And calling it premature is being generous. Non existent would be more accurate. So yes, I think it needs to be revisited if you are relying on Texas v White. Please describe the framework that you think is provided therein. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2017, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/642 "2017-01-01T00:07:26Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Keep reading, you’ll find the relevant part. > > Regards, > My Ass Right now. Right here. You will stop this ‘Regards, My Ass’ stuff. Unless you want to rack up warnings. Your choice, really. ---
**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:** [January 1, 2017, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/643 "2017-01-01T04:06:28Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > You keep coming up with violence in your responses. > > You’re not alone, let’s see what’s come up in this thread. These are some of the responses I’ve read here. > > 1. We’re going to bomb your ports and port cities. > 2. We’ll just march in and end this, with violence. How dare you vote to leave. > 3. We’ll arrest you and put you in jail if you leave CA for income tax issues. > 4. We’re going to cut off all your water. > 5. We’re going to let you be invaded by the bad countries. We won’t help. > 6. We’re going to take your bank assets. > 7. We’re not going to trade with you, you’ll go broke! > 8. You’re going to start a civil war, and you’ll lose. > 9. Seceding is illegal. > 10. You can’t seize our forts and federal lands because civil war. > 11. We’re going to take 1/4 of your Social Security checks. > > Yep, reading that list makes America sound like a wonderful place to live. Once you’re in, you’re not getting out (alive) and certainly not with any money. > > Anyway. One more time. CalExit is NON VIOLENT. No fucking civil war, no seizing anyone’s assets, no guns, no bullets, no threats of bombs, etc. > > Why no civil war? Because it’s not the way we do things in the 2016. > 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) > > Military Bases in CA. Awesome. But wait. The adjacent airspace you need to fly into and out of your bases, the California’s roads and highways you’ll use to get there, the Coastal waters off CA that you’ll want to sail through. Use of California’s resources such as water and power, police and court systems. Yep, I’m betting this is something that just might be reduced to a treaty, like it is with American bases in other countries > Federal prisons? Same problems. What about extraditing violent felons? Treaty? > > \*\* Pantastic\*\*, you need to get this “civil war” notion out of your head. We want to vote, and follow the rules, all the rules. And SCOTUS has provided such a map for doing so. Okay, non-violent. Got it? > > We do have one ace in the hole though. One the voters gave us in November. And, if things go as I expect them to go, I expect CA will be flooded with immigration requests in the first 2 years of CIC Dillweed’s presidency. If the orange maniac gets another 4 years after 2020, I would bet CA becomes very crowded. With Trump at the helm, you’re sailing blindly into uncharted waters, in bad weather, in a leaky boat. That’s not the reason CalExit exists, but I’ll bet it will probably push many voters into the “I vote yes” column. I sincerely hope CA is independent before he starts a shooting war. I’d hate to see CA bombed because of something that idiot caused. How much real money would you wager that peaceful secession occurs in this century? US dollars not calibux. ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2017, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/644 "2017-01-01T04:27:55Z")
Geeze, I think this thread shows more blinkered thinking than we saw from the SNP in 2014. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2017, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/645 "2017-01-01T04:30:31Z")
1. Revolution, by its own definition, is an extra-constitutional remedy. It destroys any existing law. 2. “Consent of the states” must mean by the amendment process. As you note, the 10th amendment forbids the federal government from removing an existing state. An amendment would be required to grant the feds or any state that power (further the state itself would have to consent or else it would be denied its equal suffrage in the Senate: a no-no even for an amendment). ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2017, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/646 "2017-01-02T13:41:11Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > No. Secession is not a reserved power of the states. The Union is indissoluble. SCOTUS has ruled on this. And that whole civil war thing. You’ve mentioned Texas v White, but you’ve skipped over that part. Can you address it? > … Clearly, you are wrong. I’m not going to cite the exception again as I’ve done it several times… Texas v White CLEARLY provides the avenue, and it is done in a rather short sentence. I"m referring to the verbiage that follows the \*“except through… .” \* It’s clearly spelled out in post 640. In other news, the public comment period has expired, and the CA Attorney General will now review the initiative and return it for filing with the Sec. of State. One change was made to it when it was noted, apparently by the AG, that revising the CA Constitution is not possible, Amending it however, is. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2017, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/647 "2017-01-02T13:52:26Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > … > 2) “Consent of the states” must mean by the amendment process. As you note, the 10th amendment forbids the federal government from removing an existing state. An amendment would be required to grant the feds or any state that power (further the state itself would have to consent or else it would be denied its equal suffrage in the Senate: a no-no even for an amendment). Yes! And that consent need not be unanimous. 2/3 can vote. I"d be willing to bet by the time the referendum passes, CA will have support from the majority of the world. Even Putin, Trump’s BFF, will seize the moment to keep this in the evening news. The land of the free not allowing those who choose to to be free! Hypocrisy at it’s finest. Or, we could follow CNN’s take on it. _The reality is that if California really wanted to, it could probably just leave the United States. It would be an unconstitutional, illegal act. But what could Washington actually do about it? Post another announcement on the White House webpage saying it doesn’t approve? No president would send in the military, would he?_ ---
**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:** [January 2, 2017, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/648 "2017-01-02T15:40:56Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Clearly, you are wrong. I’m not going to cite the exception again as I’ve done it several times… Texas v White CLEARLY provides the avenue, and it is done in a rather short sentence. I"m referring to the verbiage that follows the \*“except through… .” \* It’s clearly spelled out in post 640. > > In other news, the public comment period has expired, and the CA Attorney General will now review the initiative and return it for filing with the Sec. of State. One change was made to it when it was noted, apparently by the AG, that revising the CA Constitution is not possible, Amending it however, is. So you are relying on the part that says ‘except through consent of the states’? Why not just say so? That means constitutional amendment - do you know that? No need to be coy about it and call it a framework or imply that Texas v White says the opposite of what it actually says. You say that the framework is in Texas v White, but it’s not - it’s in the actual U.S. Constitution. But even that is a stretch, because as it currently stands it is not there. The U.S. Constitution would have to be amended. CA could amend its own constitution until the cows come home and it would be utterly futile. To say the framework for secession is in Texas v White as you have done is like saying the framework is in any SCOTUS decision that describes the amendment process. It’s simply wrong. It’s like one of those ‘if you give a pig a party’ books. Sure if you first posit that the U.S. Constitution will be amended to allow X, then we can do X! BTW, you missed responding to the “indissoluble” part. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2017, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/649 "2017-01-02T17:53:49Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Yes! And that consent need not be unanimous. 2/3 can vote. I"d be willing to bet by the time the referendum passes, CA will have support from the majority of the world. Even Putin, Trump’s BFF, will seize the moment to keep this in the evening news. The land of the free not allowing those who choose to to be free! Hypocrisy at it’s finest. Is “I’d be willing to bet” supposed to be an actual statement of fact? If so, how much are you willing to bet? Or are you just using it as a figure of speech / hyperbole? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2017, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/650 "2017-01-02T18:33:40Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Is “I’d be willing to bet” supposed to be an actual statement of fact? If so, how much are you willing to bet? Or are you just using it as a figure of speech / hyperbole? Depending on how one defines “the majority of the world”, it wouldn’t surprise me if some definition of that phrase would be happy to see the dissolution of the US. But the fact is, it matters not one wit what “the majority of the world” thinks. What matters is what “the super-majority of the states” think. And I’d be willing to bet (literally) that we won’t see the super-majority of the states approving CA secession in my lifetime. ---
**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:** [January 2, 2017, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/651 "2017-01-02T18:33:47Z")
Yeah, I’m happy to lay 100:1 odds on the referendum. Put up $100, **Morganstern** , you could win a lot off of me. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2017, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/652 "2017-01-02T18:50:33Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > So you are relying on the part that says ‘except through consent of the states’? Why not just say so? That means constitutional amendment - do you know that? No need to be coy about it and call it a framework or imply that Texas v White says the opposite of what it actually says. You say that the framework is in Texas v White, but it’s not - it’s in the actual U.S. Constitution. But even that is a stretch, because as it currently stands it is not there. The U.S. Constitution would have to be amended. CA could amend its own constitution until the cows come home and it would be utterly futile. To say the framework for secession is in Texas v White as you have done is like saying the framework is in any SCOTUS decision that describes the amendment process. It’s simply wrong. > > It’s like one of those ‘if you give a pig a party’ books. Sure if you first posit that the U.S. Constitution will be amended to allow X, then we can do X! > > BTW, you missed responding to the “indissoluble” part. Here’s the timeline. Submit the #Calexit ballot initiative proposal to the State of California. State of California conducts fiscal impact report. State of California issues circulating title and summary. The six-month signature collection period begins in Spring, 2017. 1M+ signatures turned into the State of California in Summer, 2017. Vote to amend state constitution and establish a #Calexit vote in November, 2018. Vote YES (or No) on California independence in March or April of 2019. Assume it passes. Now CA has 2 paths to independence. First…\*A member of the California federal delegation to Washington would propose an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allowing the State of California to withdraw from the Union. The Amendment would have to be approved by 2/3 of the House of Representatives and 2/3 of the Senate. If the Amendment passed it would be sent to the fifty state legislatures to be considered (to satisfy the “consent of the states” requirement in Texas v. White). It would need to be accepted by at least 38 of the 50 state legislatures to be adopted. \* Second…\*California could call for a convention of the states (which is currently being organized to tackle other constitutional amendments as we speak) and the Amendment granting California its independence would have to be approved by 2/3 of the delegates to this convention. If it passed, the Amendment would be sent to the fifty state legislatures to be considered and 38 of the 50 states would have to approve the measure in order for it to be adopted. These are the two possible paths for California’s _ **legal secession** _ from the Union\* I suspect Trump and his Republican [del]mafia[/del] cabinet will see this as a blessing. Having 55 blue votes removed from all future major elections is something they would like. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2017, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/653 "2017-01-02T19:01:40Z")
You talked so much about how much negotiating power California has in this situation, but you can’t even start your independence without approval of 38 states. It sounds like RemainderUS is the one with all the negotiating leverage. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2017, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/654 "2017-01-02T19:05:06Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Depending on how one defines “the majority of the world”, it wouldn’t surprise me if some definition of that phrase would be happy to see the dissolution of the US. But the fact is, it matters not one wit what “the majority of the world” thinks. What matters is what “the super-majority of the states” think. And I’d be willing to bet (literally) that we won’t see the super-majority of the states approving CA secession in my lifetime. You may not see it in your lifetime. But one thing we know without a doubt, nothing is forever. Not life, not the United States. It, like life, will have an end. This referendum may fail, only to rise again and again until it passes. John Steinbeck in 1940 made perhaps the best argument for why CA wants to secede. This was a period of time when the US was recovering from the great depression. Times were tough. _Some time ago a congress of honest men refused an appropriation of several hundreds of millions of dollars to feed our people. They said, and meant it, that the economic structure of the country would collapse under the pressure of such expenditure. And now the same men, just as honestly, are devoting many billions to the manufacture, transportation and detonation of explosives to protect the people they would not feed._ ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2017, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/655 "2017-01-02T19:08:02Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > You talked so much about how much negotiating power California has in this situation, but you can’t even start your independence without approval of 38 states. It sounds like RemainderUS is the one with all the negotiating leverage. Yeah, we have this albatross of red states around our neck. Personally, I’m not really worried, I have little doubt Trump will totally fuck things up so bad no one will notice our leaving. ---
**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:** [January 2, 2017, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/656 "2017-01-02T19:13:32Z")
So are you going to take us up on our wagers or what? If you do, California will be an even bigger donor state, making your case even stronger… ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2017, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/657 "2017-01-02T19:22:11Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > So are you going to take us up on our wagers or what? If you do, California will be an even bigger donor state, making your case even stronger… You going to be here in 2019 when it passes, then a few years later when it’s implemented? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2017, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/658 "2017-01-02T19:44:59Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Yeah, we have this albatross of red states around our neck. Personally, I’m not really worried, I have little doubt Trump will totally fuck things up so bad no one will notice our leaving. No one notice? You need 38 of the states to _approve_ it. Personally, I’ll start a movement here in Utah to approve your CalExit amendment in exchange for $1 trillion, USD that is, cash, to the coffers of Utah, and some guarantee of an automatic deportation of any Californians trying to get to Utah. Maybe we’ll have you guys build a wall (and pay for it, of course) on the California border to keep the illegal immigrants out of the rest of the USA. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2017, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/659 "2017-01-02T19:59:26Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > No one notice? You need 38 of the states to _approve_ it. > > Personally, I’ll start a movement here in Utah to approve your CalExit amendment in exchange for $1 trillion, USD that is, cash, to the coffers of Utah, and some guarantee of an automatic deportation of any Californians trying to get to Utah. Maybe we’ll have you guys build a wall (and pay for it, of course) on the California border to keep the illegal immigrants out of the rest of the USA. If we could build a wall to keep out homophobic morons, er I mean mormons and their homophobic magic undie wearing money out of California, I’d be all for it. Utah can go fuck itself. Hard. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2017, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/660 "2017-01-02T21:45:45Z")
So your thought is that the red states are suckling at the teat of California sooo much that California should secede. Yet, at the same time you believe that a significant number of those same red states that depend on California for their lifeblood (at least 38 of the total 50) will approve of the secession? Again, not only the red states. Take all thirty states that Trump won, plus California, you would need seven more states who would agree to this. And let’s say that your fantasy comes true. Then Alabama and Mississippi want to secede and have anti-SSM and no legal abortions. Do you support that, or do only left wing states get your vote to secede? If you support that, then you will have wished a total destruction of the United States, which is frankly something I would not support because I lost one election. A simpler way of achieving your goal (instead of destroying the union) is to strengthen the 10th amendment and return more power to the states…something conservatives have been advocating for years. Let all 50 states join together for common defense, but leave issues like marijuana, same sex marriage, abortion to each state without a federal government too powerful to encroach on California or Mississippi. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467.md?page=32) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467.md?page=34)