# 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:** 34
**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, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/661 "2017-01-02T22:18:33Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > 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. Frankly, I could care less what Louisiana and Mississippi do. Let the people of Louisiana and Mississippi decide what they want to do and more power to them. We’ve gone over the secession reasoning, the UN charter, and the other leverage previously. But the bottom line remains, CA does not need the US. Period. ---
**Author:** ![Ambrosio\_Spinola](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Ambrosio\_Spinola](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambrosio_Spinola)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2017, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/662 "2017-01-02T22:19:06Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > 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. A critical point. How are you going to pitch this idea to the _blue_ states? Even if the red states all agreed that the Union would be better off without California - a tough sell in itself - by agreeing to cut California loose the blue states would be significantly reducing liberal power and population in the remaining US, as well as eliminating some of their more established politicians and fundraising sources. They’d be cutting their own throats to agree to such a thing. And no, they won’t all just pack up and move to California before the split. Like it or not, we’re all in this together for now. It’s possible that the US will eventually split up at some point, but I’ll bet you that it won’t be in the next decade and if that day does come it will not be an amicable divorce. ---
**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, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/663 "2017-01-02T22:19:28Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > But the bottom line remains, CA does not need the US. Period. Well, except for that little sticking point of needing 38 states to approve their secession, right? ---
**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, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/664 "2017-01-02T22:27:15Z")
> [@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. That’s pretty much the way the US solves its problems right? Land of the free right? Divisive bullying is now what America is about? ---
**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, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/665 "2017-01-02T22:32:43Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > You going to be here in 2019 when it passes, then a few years later when it’s implemented? I’ve been here longer than you, and I don’t have any terminal diseases that I know of. So are we all set? ---
**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, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/666 "2017-01-02T22:35:38Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Well, except for that little sticking point of needing 38 states to approve their secession, right? Oh, I guess you missed the part about the UN charter, and Chapter 11 therein. Wherein the US agreed to, and Congress ratified provisions about a people’s right to be free. Of course, the US could always break their promise because… I suspect Trump will be happy to have 55 less blue votes in Federal elections. And Trump’s bottom line… his assets… _At 52 stories, 555 California Street towers over San Francisco as the city’s second tallest skyscraper and one of its most iconic business addresses. Built in 1969, the building formerly known as Bank of America Tower was designed to represent the bank’s success, power, and wealth. Currently home to many high -profile occupants, the building is a business mecca as well as a city landmark._ Guess who owns 30% of that? ---
**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, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/667 "2017-01-02T22:54:46Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > 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\* So either U.S. constitutional amendment or constitutional convention whereby the entire U.S. constitution is replaced. Right. I agree those are available options. But you are wrong when you say that framework is laid out in Texas v White. That’s just very very wrong. > [@Morgenstern](#): > > Oh, I guess you missed the part about the UN charter, and Chapter 11 therein. Wherein the US agreed to, and Congress ratified provisions about a people’s right to be free. Are you adding a third avenue with this? Of course, it’s wrong that this provides a way for CA to secede. Unless you think Texas v White also describes the UN Charter scheme? **Indissoluble**. > [@Ravenman](#): > > Yeah, I’m happy to lay 100:1 odds on the referendum. Put up $100, **Morganstern** , you could win a lot off of me. Unfortunately, Morenstern has given himself a rather easy out with this wager: > [@Morgenstern](#): > > I"d be willing to bet by the time the referendum passes, CA will have support from the majority of the world. If the referendum does not pass in 2019, the time frame specified above is undefined so theoretically the terms will not come to pass until the referendum is passed. I’m guessing that would be never. ---
**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, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/668 "2017-01-02T23:02:08Z")
> [@Ambrosio\_Spinola](#): > > A critical point. How are you going to pitch this idea to the _blue_ states? Even if the red states all agreed that the Union would be better off without California - a tough sell in itself - by agreeing to cut California loose the blue states would be significantly reducing liberal power and population in the remaining US, as well as eliminating some of their more established politicians and fundraising sources. They’d be cutting their own throats to agree to such a thing. And no, they won’t all just pack up and move to California before the split. > > Like it or not, we’re all in this together for now. It’s possible that the US will eventually split up at some point, but I’ll bet you that it won’t be in the next decade and if that day does come it will not be an amicable divorce. I honestly suspect the next few years will see a significant increase in secession talk. The same “political experts” on this board who promised us Trump could never, possibly even get close to getting elected are saying this will never happen too. It’s a long road, but it’s mapped out and legal. ---
**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, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/669 "2017-01-02T23:12:03Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > So either U.S. constitutional amendment or constitutional convention whereby the entire U.S. constitution is replaced. Right. I agree those are available options. But you are wrong when you say that framework is laid out in Texas v White. That’s just very very wrong. > Are you adding a third avenue with this? Of course, it’s wrong that this provides a way for CA to secede. Unless you think Texas v White also describes the UN Charter scheme? > > **Indissoluble**. > > Unfortunately, Morenstern has given himself a rather easy out with this wager: > If the referendum does not pass in 2019, the time frame specified above is undefined so theoretically the terms will not come to pass until the referendum is passed. I’m guessing that would be never. The talk of a wager is just a distraction from the subject of this thread. It doesn’t promote the argument and it might even violate California law. That’s why I’m ignoring it. Now with respect to the 3rd avenue you’ve mentioned. This is not the case. This is not the 3rd avenue but a justification for Congress to act as it has promised to act with respect to this. \*California invokes Chapter 11 of the United Nations Charter, which requires that 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, “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.” \* _Which have **OR** assume responsibility_… Such a request will be made. _Not yet achieved a full measure of self-government._… (Wait until AG Jefferson Sessions invalidates the CA legal marijuana initiative - as well as that in 6 other states, then tell me we’re “self-governed” as the US will claim). \*“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. \* This was signed by the US and ratified by Congress. CA will use that in it’s drive to ask Congress to do what it has promised the world it would do. ---
**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, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/670 "2017-01-02T23:24:17Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Oh, I guess you missed the part about the UN charter, and Chapter 11 therein. Wherein the US agreed to, and Congress ratified provisions about a people’s right to be free. > Of course, the US could always break their promise because… > > I suspect Trump will be happy to have 55 less blue votes in Federal elections. And Trump’s bottom line… his assets… > > _At 52 stories, 555 California Street towers over San Francisco as the city’s second tallest skyscraper and one of its most iconic business addresses. Built in 1969, the building formerly known as Bank of America Tower was designed to represent the bank’s success, power, and wealth. Currently home to many high -profile occupants, the building is a business mecca as well as a city landmark._ > > Guess who owns 30% of that? Chapter 11 of the UN charter doesn’t matter. Your plan for secession requires the approval of 38 states (and 2/3 of Congress or delegates to a convention of the states). That’s the hurdle you need to clear (after you clear the hurdle of resistance of Californians themselves, which I suspect you won’t). If, in arguing for your position, you want to try to guilt the rest of us into voting for the CalExit amendment because of the UN charter, that could certainly be part of your argument (not one that I, as a voter, find very compelling, but some might). But Chapter 11 doesn’t control whether I have to vote yes or no to the CalExit amendment. I do. It doesn’t really matter what Trump wants either. It matters what the majority of people in Utah and Iowa and Maine want. Are you going to offer us anything in exchange for CalExit, or just count on us all wanting you gone? ---
**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, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/671 "2017-01-02T23:55:03Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > The talk of a wager is just a distraction from the subject of this thread. It doesn’t promote the argument and it might even violate California law. That’s why I’m ignoring it. > > Now with respect to the 3rd avenue you’ve mentioned. This is not the case. This is not the 3rd avenue but a justification for Congress to act as it has promised to act with respect to this. > > \*California invokes Chapter 11 of the United Nations Charter, which requires that 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, “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.” > \* > > _Which have **OR** assume responsibility_… > Such a request will be made. > > _Not yet achieved a full measure of self-government._… (Wait until AG Jefferson Sessions invalidates the CA legal marijuana initiative - as well as that in 6 other states, then tell me we’re “self-governed” as the US will claim). > > \*“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. > \* > This was signed by the US and ratified by Congress. CA will use that in it’s drive to ask Congress to do what it has promised the world it would do. Good lord, for the billionth time, that provision is about decolonization, not dissolution of legitimate political unions. ---
**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, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/672 "2017-01-02T23:58:07Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > The talk of a wager is just a distraction from the subject of this thread. It doesn’t promote the argument and it might even violate California law. That’s why I’m ignoring it. Is that why you’re also ignoring the falsity of your claim about the framework for secession existing in Texas v White and the concept of dissoluble? ---
**Author:** ![Yllaria](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yllaria/32/3452_2.png) [@Yllaria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yllaria)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2017, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/673 "2017-01-02T23:58:51Z")
> [@August\_West](#): > > How long before Northern California would decide to split from Southern California? Splitting California has been popping up as a mini-movement for as long as I can remember. It’s not ever going to happen. Neither will calexit. > [@levdrakon](#): > > . . . Idaho? Uh, yeah. Stars at night and no jobs. Well, I guess you guys have potatoes. They also have a growing number of California retirees. > [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > . . . California already has border control. Try driving into the state now and you’ll pass through a checkpoint. Where you’re asked: “Do you have any fruit? Do you have any firewood?” and are either waved through or pointed to the dumpster. Oh, and if you’re towing a boat, they’ll ask if you hosed it off completely. It’s an AGRICULTURAL checkpoint. There is no border control involved. They don’t care what country you’re from or whether you’re there illegally. They only care if you’ve got a box of oranges in the car. Border control would be a completely different department. In fact it would be a department that doesn’t exist, currently. > [@Morgenstern](#): > > You keep coming up with violence in your responses . . . CalExit is NON VIOLENT. . . . Because it’s not the way we do things in the 2016. . . . . OK, that was amusing. You must not watch the same news the rest of us do. > [@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. Let me guess. It’s treaties all the way down? ---
**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 3, 2017, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/674 "2017-01-03T00:05:51Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > 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. levdrakon, this is right on the edge. I’m going to mod-note it but I’ll be comfortable with a warning if this sort of thing pops up again. So stop it. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2017, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/675 "2017-01-03T00:12:58Z")
Wasn’t the argument as to whether or not states could secede without the permission of the rest of the country decided back in 1865? It wasn’t a good idea then and I don’t see why it is now. ---
**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 3, 2017, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/676 "2017-01-03T00:31:07Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Wasn’t the argument as to whether or not states could secede without the permission of the rest of the country decided back in 1865? > > It wasn’t a good idea then and I don’t see why it is now. But the UN wasn’t around back then. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2017, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/677 "2017-01-03T01:02:33Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > But the UN wasn’t around back then. I’m not sure your point. Are you suggesting the UN would intervene to force the US to accept California leaving? They can’t do that without the US approving it. Are you suggesting the UN would compel the US to accept such a secession? Again, any such measure would get vetoed by the US. ---
**Author:** ![jz78817](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jz78817/32/1028_2.png) [@jz78817](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jz78817)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2017, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/678 "2017-01-03T01:12:50Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > But the UN wasn’t around back then. UN Resolutions are mostly non-binding. non-binding resolutions only affect the US’s internal affairs if we incorporate them into law. else they’re worth little more than the paper they’re printed upon. and the one chapter of the UN Charter which _is_ binding is Chapter VII, which deals with aggression between member states. So what you’re suggesting is that if California wants to leave, and the rest of the union blocks it, the UN is going to violate its own charter to allow California to leave? ---
**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 3, 2017, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/679 "2017-01-03T01:22:25Z")
Woosh. ---
**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 3, 2017, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/680 "2017-01-03T01:23:19Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > I’m not sure your point. Are you suggesting the UN would intervene to force the US to accept California leaving? > > They can’t do that without the US approving it. > > Are you suggesting the UN would compel the US to accept such a secession? > > Again, any such measure would get vetoed by the US. It was a joke, based on the absurd notion put forth by backers of this resolution that the UN Charter compels countries to allow sections to opt out by simply voting to do so. It’s odd that we spend so much time on this MB talking about how dangerous Trump’s policies will be for the future of our country, and yet there are folks who are cheerleading the literal dissolution of the US, as if it were as inconsequential as unfriending someone on Facebook. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467.md?page=33) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467.md?page=35)