# 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:** 35
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2017, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/681 "2017-01-03T01:43:16Z")
> [@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. Not in the least. We’d simply ask Congress to honor a promise they made to the UN. They are free to honor it, or break their promise. Breaking a promise might not look good on the United State’s resume. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2017, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/682 "2017-01-03T01:44:31Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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. > > … Okay John Mace. Explain the charter to us then, you appear to be speaking as if you have knowledge with respect to it’s formation and reach. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2017, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/683 "2017-01-03T01:48:56Z")
> [@jz78817](#): > > 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? You’ve missed the point. Congress has already approved it. They with either honor their promise to the UN, or they will break it. A record for not keeping your word might not play well the next time the US wants a treaty with another nation. ---
**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 3, 2017, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/684 "2017-01-03T01:55:13Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > You’ve missed the point. Congress has already approved it. They with either honor their promise to the UN, or they will break it. A record for not keeping your word might not play well the next time the US wants a treaty with another nation. There is no promise by any country in the UN Charter that undermines the claim of each sovereign state to its incorporated people and territories. There is a goal in the UN Charter to provide sovereignty to people and territories that were deprived of it due to colonization. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2017, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/685 "2017-01-03T01:57:27Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Good lord, for the billionth time, that provision is about decolonization, not dissolution of legitimate political unions. Because it says “decolonization and only decolonization” right? It’s about the right of people to be self-governing. There is a list of territories that are within the trust, but the language says…\*United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of \*… There will be a request to the UN, that’s without a doubt. Your argument would be better aimed at the “self-governing” aspect if the charter. Argue that we are self-governing, and I’ll give many examples of why we are not. That’s the potential problem with this, not whether the charter would cover an independent CA. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2017, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/686 "2017-01-03T01:59:59Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > There is no promise by any country in the UN Charter that undermines the claim of each sovereign state to its incorporated people and territories. There is a goal in the UN Charter to provide sovereignty to people and territories that were deprived of it due to colonization. Cite please. ---
**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, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/687 "2017-01-03T02:02:22Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Woosh. > [@](#): > > **John Mace** > 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. Oops! My bad! That’s what happens when you come into a conversation late. :smack: ---
**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 3, 2017, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/688 "2017-01-03T02:07:17Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Cite please. No country that has gained independence since 1945 has done so under these provisions of the UN Charter except those that were colonies or held in some kind of territorial trust. I provided the list of territories that the UN considers to be the subject of the Chapter 11 efforts several weeks ago, and they are all former colonies or territories. ---
**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, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/689 "2017-01-03T02:08:13Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Not in the least. We’d simply ask Congress to honor a promise they made to the UN. They are free to honor it, or break their promise. Breaking a promise might not look good on the United State’s resume. Uh-huh. You are aware that there are lots of UN members who might not want to back a resolution that could come back to bite them in the rear in the future? Furthermore, you’re aware the US could veto any such measure even if by some act of of insanity it occurred. Finally, you are aware this idiotic proposal was put forth around the same time a ton of people were claiming they’d leave the US if Trump won. How many of them have actually left? ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2017, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/690 "2017-01-03T02:12:19Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Uh-huh. > > You are aware that there are lots of UN members who might not want to back a resolution that could come back to bite them in the rear in the future? > > Furthermore, you’re aware the US could veto any such measure even if by some act of of insanity it occurred. > > Finally, you are aware this idiotic proposal was put forth around the same time a ton of people were claiming they’d leave the US if Trump won. > > How many of them have actually left? Veto their charter? Okay. Finally, you realize this “proposal” predates Trump’s announcement to run by about a year? Trump’s victory just caused a 20 fold increase in supporters. ---
**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 3, 2017, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/691 "2017-01-03T02:14:56Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Your argument would be better aimed at the “self-governing” aspect if the charter. Argue that we are self-governing, and I’ll give many examples of why we are not. That’s the potential problem with this, not whether the charter would cover an independent CA. The people of California are exactly as much self-governing as the people of any other state. Just like the people of Nice are as much self-governing as the people of Paris; and the people of the southern part of San Marino are as self-governing as the people who live in the western part of San Marino. The problem is that the people of Hawaii were not as self-governing as the people of California, until Hawaii became a state. And when Hawaii became a state, the UN commission in charge of these things redesignated Hawaii from a “non-self governing territory” to a “former non-self governing territory.” If the people in each state are not self-governing, why did the UN remove Hawaii (and Alaska!) from its list of non-self governing territories when they became states? I’m eagerly awaiting your answer to that specific question. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2017, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/692 "2017-01-03T23:50:12Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > 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. What kind of liberal reasoning is this? Don’t we (rightly) condemn conservatives for not caring about people in other countries? Besides, what are you going to do if conservatives start moving into California? Build a wall? This is just so poorly thought out as to be ridiculous. Of course at this point you can’t possibly back down and save face so this silly charade continues on… ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2017, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/693 "2017-01-04T01:36:42Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Not in the least. We’d simply ask Congress to honor a promise they made to the UN. They are free to honor it, or break their promise. Breaking a promise might not look good on the United State’s resume. So the plan is that you’re going to claim that the US made a promise that no one else, including the UN itself, thinks they made, and expect that to convince 2/3 of a republican dominated Senate and House to approve the measure, then for 38 of the states that you claim are sucking the life out of California to approve the amendment? Even ignoring the silliness of the rest of it, I’m confident more than 1/3 of Congress would gain support from their base by publicly telling the UN not to interfere in US affairs. The whole ‘oh, you’re being such MEANIES’ line of argument is just absurd, and expecting countries like Russia and China who have significant secessionist movements they actively suppress to support secession is beyond just wishful. ---
**Author:** ![DorkVader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/73ab20/32.png) [@DorkVader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DorkVader)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2017, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/694 "2017-01-04T07:11:46Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > So the plan is that you’re going to claim that the US made a promise that no one else, including the UN itself, thinks they made, and expect that to convince 2/3 of a republican dominated Senate and House to approve the measure, then for 38 of the states that you claim are sucking the life out of California to approve the amendment? Even ignoring the silliness of the rest of it, I’m confident more than 1/3 of Congress would gain support from their base by publicly telling the UN not to interfere in US affairs. > > The whole ‘oh, you’re being such MEANIES’ line of argument is just absurd, and **expecting countries like Russia and China who have significant secessionist movements they actively suppress to support secession is beyond just wishful**. bolding mine To be fair Pantastic, I DO believe Russia and China would gleefully and with malice aforethought support all manner of secessionist movements in the US. (and possibly do so even if it is in a sub-rosa sort of way). I think Morgenstern is either very very naïve/shortsighted/willfully ignorant about the realities of this topic and stubborn, or is on an extended whoosh binge with this thread, but to say no other countries, especially China or Russia wouldn’t meddle if they think they can get away with it is, I think equally naïve/shortsighted. ---
**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 4, 2017, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/695 "2017-01-04T07:27:05Z")
> [@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. > > 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?_ Yes. He would. It worked on the Confederacy. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2017, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/696 "2017-01-04T07:28:39Z")
> [@guestchaz](#): > > bolding mine > > To be fair Pantastic, I DO believe Russia and China would gleefully and with malice aforethought support all manner of secessionist movements in the US. (and possibly do so even if it is in a sub-rosa sort of way). [Absolutely](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-12-07/how-to-make-california-great-secede-with-a-little-help-from-putin). How to Make California Great: Secede, With a Little Help From Putin > [@](#): > > Trump as useful frenemy is a view Marinelli shares with his Russian friends. Ten days after returning to Russia, Marinelli took part in the annual Dialogue of Nations conference, organized in Moscow by the Anti-Globalist Movement of Russia. Attended by representatives of mostly left-wing separatist movements from Western Europe, the U.S., and the former Soviet Union, the conference was held at the Ritz-Carlton and funded by a grant of 3.5 million rubles ($54,000) from the National Charity Foundation > > The National Charity Foundation, which describes itself as operating “under the patronage” of the Putin administration, is one of several foundations that dispense government grants to nongovernmental organizations . A representative of the foundation declined to discuss the Anti-Globalist Movement of Russia by phone, requesting instead a list of written questions, which it is reviewing. > > The Anti-Globalist Movement advocates extreme forms of Russian nationalism and imperialism, as well as supporting the Kremlin’s strategic military intervention in Syria and Ukraine. Its leader, Aleksandr Ionov, sits on the boards of Antimaidan and Officers of Russia, pro-Kremlin groups out to purge Russia of the liberal opposition. In 2013, Ionov met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and made him an honorary member of the movement. Another honorary member is former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. > > The movement’s page on the Russian VKontakte social network is updated several times a day with materials bashing Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, the Ukrainian leadership, and the Syrian opposition. A post published before the U.S. election shows Clinton taken to the gallows and said, “Help Trump and Putin defeat the witch.” ---
**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 4, 2017, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/697 "2017-01-04T07:33:00Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > 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. The UN charter? Lol. How many carrier groups does the UN have? ---
**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 4, 2017, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/698 "2017-01-04T07:36:44Z")
> [@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. Every neighborhood in America lacks self government by your ridiculous standards. Are we going to have 101241 countries where the USA once was because of some misinterpreted concept? ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2017, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/699 "2017-01-04T13:20:57Z")
> [@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. Yes, the other Blue states won’t agree to California leaving. Nor will those of us who live in Blue areas of Red states. The loss of California’s electoral votes would make Democratic recovery–which I do believe is possible–quite unlikely. Where would all the refugees to California live? I suppose we could get agricultural work–to replace the farm workers The New California would keep out. Somehow, this movement sounds awfully white… ---
**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 4, 2017, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/700 "2017-01-04T14:45:41Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > Yes, the other Blue states won’t agree to California leaving… That won’t be a problem, because we’ll never get there. Californians won’t agree to California leaving. And I say that as one of those Californians. As for the whole bit about UN Chapter 11, it would be nice for the CalExiters to put up some credible legal expert to advance their cause. As it is, the only place one encounters that idea is on their own website. The fact is, though, they won’t be able to because it truly is out there in “Sovereign Citizen” and “Freeman of the Land” territory. If one isn’t convinced by a plain reading of the text, then one could do a lot worse than deferring to the judgement of **Ravenman** , who has shown himself to be quite the expert in these matters over the years on this MB. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467.md?page=34) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467.md?page=36)