# 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:** 39
**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 9, 2017, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/761 "2017-01-09T16:43:30Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > :rolleyes: > > You don’t even know the name of the “appropriate UN committee” yet you’re quoting how it works? And by the way, there’s a perfectly good reason why **John Mace** didn’t provide the name of the committee – it is too fucking long. “The Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples” is just too damn much typing (even I coped and pasted it), and they are the group the creates the list of non-self governing territories. > **[Special Committee on Decolonization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Committee_on_Decolonization)** > > The United Nations Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, or the Special Committee on Decolonization (C-24), is a committee of the United Nations General Assembly that was established in 1961 and is exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization. > When the United Nations was created, there were 750 million people living in territories that were non-self-governing. However, th... And again, you think California is a colony? Fer reals? ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2017, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/762 "2017-01-09T16:49:26Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You can’t even answer the repeated question about why Hawaii and Alaska are judged to have stopped being non-self governing territories in 1959, but you think California will be one soon, so I don’t think you’re in a position to nit-pick other posts in this thread. We’re talking about CalExit and the position CalExit is taking. Both Hawaii and Alaska have organizations with respect to independence. Alaska even goes so far as to claim fraud was involved. - Our main “goal” is a legal vote and ballot; one that was not given in 1958 and was in violation of International Law and Treaty. Alaskan were robbed of the choices we were to have as a non-self-governing territory, and steam-rolled into the current classification of a State. The Native population of Alaska, in a large percentage, did not even receive a ballot because of the Federal Voting Rights Act in place, at the time requiring the ability to read and write English,\* (and many native Alaskan’s didn’t, therefore, didn’t get to vote) From the AIP site. As for Hawaii. This is actually sort of funny… _HONOLULU—China has suggested arming Hawaii’s independence activists in retaliation for U.S. arms sales to Taiwan and recently threatened to challenge American sovereignty by making legal claims to the Pacific islands as its territory._ (suggestion rejected - but it does show that the world is watching. and Native Hawaiians announced that they had made history: they had written a constitution for a Hawaiian nation… _With a vote of 88 in favor and 30 opposed, the delegates approved a constitution and declaration of sovereignty—the first steps toward creating a new Native Hawaiian nation. But there’s a sharp divide between two camps: activists who want to start what would be a federally recognized, semi-autonomous government in the same vein as other Native American groups, and a growing contingent who instead want Hawaii to become a completely independent nation from the U.S._ Hope this helps your self-governing questions. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2017, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/763 "2017-01-09T16:53:42Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > > [@John Mace](#): > > > > So, CA is not on the current list, so it’s not a NSGT. Period. It won’t get on the list because the US can veto it getting on that list. End of story. > > Are you speaking for the UN or are you just assuming you know what will happen? This goes back to something else you haven’t addressed. It seems that much of the basis for CA secession is that California doesn’t get enough back in return for all the tax money it sends to the feds. Let’s assume that, for purely venal reasons, the rest of the US wants to keep CA around just as a cash cow. How do you set about convincing us to let you go off and then we don’t get the money anymore? Why wouldn’t the federal government veto putting California on the list? You have to convince 38 states to let you go, even though it isn’t in their interests to do so. You have to convince the federal government not to veto putting you on the list, even though it isn’t in their interest to do so. How are you going to do that? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2017, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/764 "2017-01-09T16:57:28Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > And by the way, there’s a perfectly good reason why **John Mace** didn’t provide the name of the committee – it is too fucking long. “The Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples” is just too damn much typing (even I coped and pasted it), and they are the group the creates the list of non-self governing territories. > > [Special Committee on Decolonization - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Committee_on_Decolonization) > > And again, you think California is a colony? Fer reals? LOL, no. The application goes to the “General Assembly,” via the Secretary-General. 2 words, 15 letters, isn’t too long. 😉 _The Secretary-General shall, for information, send a copy of the application to the General Assembly, or to the Members of the United Nations if the Assembly is not in session._ ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2017, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/765 "2017-01-09T17:06:02Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > This goes back to something else you haven’t addressed. > > It seems that much of the basis for CA secession is that California doesn’t get enough back in return for all the tax money it sends to the feds. Let’s assume that, for purely venal reasons, the rest of the US wants to keep CA around just as a cash cow. How do you set about convincing us to let you go off and then we don’t get the money anymore? Why wouldn’t the federal government veto putting California on the list? … Of course they will. Who pays, disproportionately, for all the entitlements the US enjoys? Problem is that the US already promised, in writing, to support the same. > [@Shodan](#): > > … > You have to convince 38 states to let you go, even though it isn’t in their interests to do so. You have to convince the federal government not to veto putting you on the list, even though it isn’t in their interest to do so. > > How are you going to do that?.. Probably one state at a time. I strongly suspect Trump will do more to turn even the reddest states, even those with the most FEMA trailers, into self-governing activists. (No problem helping people in need, but it’s really up to the state to do that, not the other states IE. California) ---
**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 9, 2017, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/766 "2017-01-09T17:08:04Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > We’re talking about CalExit and the position CalExit is taking. > > Both Hawaii and Alaska have organizations with respect to independence. Alaska even goes so far as to claim fraud was involved. . . . > > Hope this helps your self-governing questions. No, because none of that has anything to do with the question. Let me make this as clear as I possibly can (notwithstanding that it was perfectly clear the last several times the question was asked): 1. Hawaii and Alaska were declared in 1946 to be non-self governing territories 2. When they became states in 1959, the UN removed them from the list of non-self governing territories 3. The UN position is that statehood grants the people of Hawaii and Alaska the full measure of self-government that they are entitled to 4. Therefore, if Hawaii and Alaska are self-governing, as the UN has determined, then there is no reason why the State of California would be treated any differently. Why do you disagree with the UN? ---
**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 9, 2017, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/767 "2017-01-09T17:12:00Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > LOL, no. > > The application goes to the “General Assembly,” via the Secretary-General. 2 words, 15 letters, isn’t too long. 😉 > > _The Secretary-General shall, for information, send a copy of the application to the General Assembly, or to the Members of the United Nations if the Assembly is not in session._ Wait wait wait – this is crazy. You chided **John Mace** for not typing out the name of a committee. Here is what you wrote: > [@](#): > > You don’t even know the name of the “appropriate UN committee” yet you’re quoting how it works? I provided the name of the committee, which is very long – and then you respond that the General Assembly is the committee? How are the people of California going to manage their affairs as an independent country if we can’t even maintain a conversation on a single topic over the duration of two different posts? ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2017, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/768 "2017-01-09T17:20:09Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > No, because none of that has anything to do with the question. Let me make this as clear as I possibly can (notwithstanding that it was perfectly clear the last several times the question was asked): > > 1. Hawaii and Alaska were declared in 1946 to be non-self governing territories > 2. When they became states in 1959, the UN removed them from the list of non-self governing territories > 3. The UN position is that statehood grants the people of Hawaii and Alaska the full measure of self-government that they are entitled to > 4. Therefore, if Hawaii and Alaska are self-governing, as the UN has determined, then there is no reason why the State of California would be treated any differently. > > Why do you disagree with the UN? Really? Self-governing? When those who couldn’t read and write English and were denied the right to vote on statehood? Does that seem fair? If those states pass an initiative for independence, we’ll talk. Until now, what they do or don’t do is not relevant to CalExit’s issues. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2017, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/769 "2017-01-09T17:25:06Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Wait wait wait – this is crazy. You chided **John Mace** for not typing out the name of a committee. Here is what you wrote: > > I provided the name of the committee, which is very long – and then you respond that the General Assembly is the committee? > > How are the people of California going to manage their affairs as an independent country if we can’t even maintain a conversation on a single topic over the duration of two different posts? I was simply pointing out that you were wrong as was John. Let me help you again. Here’s the process. \*Any State which desires to become a Member of the United Nations shall submit an application to the Secretary-General. Such application shall contain a declaration, made in a formal instrument, that the State in question accepts the obligations contained in the Charter. Notification of applications Rule 135 [see introduction, para. 4] The Secretary-General shall, for information, send a copy of the application to the General Assembly, or to the Members of the United Nations if the Assembly is not in session. Consideration of applications and decision thereon Rule 136 If the Security Council recommends the applicant State for membership, the General Assembly shall consider whether the applicant is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter and shall decide, by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting, upon its application for membership. Rule 137 [see introduction, para. 4] If the Security Council does not recommend the applicant State for membership or postpones the consideration of the application, the General Assembly may, after full consideration of the special report of the Security Council, send the application back to the Council, together with a full record of the discussion in the Assembly, for further consideration and recommendation or report. Notification of decision and effective date of membership Rule 138 [see introduction, para. 4] The Secretary-General shall inform the applicant State of the decision of the General Assembly. If the application is approved, membership shall become effective on the date on which the General Assembly takes its decision on the application. - As you can see, in Rule 136 John’s point that the “committee” [his word] had to vote unanimously is clearly wrong. ---
**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 9, 2017, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/770 "2017-01-09T17:33:36Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Really? Self-governing? When those who couldn’t read and write English and were denied the right to vote on statehood? Does that seem fair? > > If those states pass an initiative for independence, we’ll talk. Until now, what they do or don’t do is not relevant to CalExit’s issues. The UN says Alaska and Hawaii stopped being non-self governing territories in 1959. Whatever you think about the voting process, it’s clear the UN doesn’t have those concerns. Of course their status is relevant. You’re appealing to the UN to add California to the list of non-self governing territories, not the (non-existent) list of “non-self governing territories that have held a vote on separating from the country they belong to.” The logic is simple and irrefutable: if Hawaii and Alaska do not belong on the list, then no state belongs on the list. > [@](#): > > I was simply pointing out that you were wrong as was John. > > Let me help you again. Here’s the process. . . . > > As you can see, in Rule 136 John’s point that the “committee” [his word] had to vote unanimously is clearly wrong. You aren’t even addressing his point. He’s talking about whether something is declared a non-self governing territory. You’re posting about how an independent state may seek to join the UN. Seriously – is there an attention span issue here? ---
**Author:** ![Phrozen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/22d042/32.png) [@Phrozen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phrozen)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2017, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/771 "2017-01-09T17:40:57Z")
Morgenstern, you also neglected to answer my question: what’s Calexit Plan B, for when, not if, the rest of the US rejects this nonsense and declines to allow your peaceful secession? ---
**Author:** ![Phrozen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/22d042/32.png) [@Phrozen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phrozen)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2017, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/772 "2017-01-09T17:42:40Z")
Also, the Alaska Independence Party is probably not your best role model. They’re a laughably small and irrelevant minority in Alaska. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2017, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/773 "2017-01-09T17:43:06Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > The UN says Alaska and Hawaii stopped being non-self governing territories in 1959. Whatever you think about the voting process, it’s clear the UN doesn’t have those concerns. And you’re sure they won’t in the future? > [@Ravenman](#): > > Of course their status is relevant. You’re appealing to the UN to add California to the list of non-self governing territories, not the (non-existent) list of “non-self governing territories that have held a vote on separating from the country they belong to.” Not relevant to CalExit. They are free to follow suit. > [@Ravenman](#): > > The logic is simple and irrefutable: if Hawaii and Alaska do not belong on the list, then no state belongs on the list. One difference is that CA may have voted to divorce itself from the US. If that happens, there is a very large difference. > [@Ravenman](#): > > You aren’t even addressing his point. He’s talking about whether something is declared a non-self governing territory. You’re posting about how an independent state may seek to join the UN. One that votes to be independent? The will of the people to self-govern, as demonstrated by a successful vote, changes nothing and is indistinguishable between the Hawaiian/Alaskan issue? You really don’t see any difference? ---
**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 9, 2017, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/774 "2017-01-09T17:45:43Z")
I’m still waiting for a cite to a legal scholar that any of this CalExit stuff has any merit. I wonder why none has been offered? Any anonymous poster on a MB can put forth a crackpot legal idea, but unless there is some solid legal backing, then the idea doesn’t rise above the level of “crackpot”. The “anti’” side does not suffer from that problem. [Here’s one:](http://www.abc10.com/news/local/california/calexit-is-it-possible-for-california-to-secede-from-us/350450504) > [@](#): > > David A. Carrillo, who’s the Executive Director of the California Constitution Center at the University of California, Berkeley Law, discussed if there’s legal basis for this to be accomplished. > > “There is no legal basis for a state to secede from the union.” Carrillo said. “The U.S. Constitution (A4s3) has a procedure for adding new states or subdividing existing states–both require Congress to consent. But there is no procedure, at all, in the U.S. constitution for a state to secede.” Emphasis added. So, we have two choices: 1. Believe the unsubstantiated opinion of an anonymous poster on a MB 2. Believe the opinion of a legal scholar at one of the best Universities in the state. Gee, I can’t decide which one has more credibility… ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2017, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/775 "2017-01-09T17:47:56Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > And you’re sure they won’t in the future? As long as the US has veto power, yes. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2017, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/776 "2017-01-09T17:48:38Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’m still waiting for a cite to a legal scholar that any of this CalExit stuff has any merit. I wonder why none has been offered? Any anonymous poster on a MB can put forth a crackpot legal idea, but unless there is some solid legal backing, then the idea doesn’t rise above the level of “crackpot”. > > The “anti’” side does not suffer from that problem. [Here’s one:](http://www.abc10.com/news/local/california/calexit-is-it-possible-for-california-to-secede-from-us/350450504) > > Emphasis added. So, we have two choices: > > 1. Believe the unsubstantiated opinion of an anonymous poster on a MB > 2. Believe the opinion of a legal scholar at one of the best Universities in the state. > > Gee, I can’t decide which one has more credibility… He must have not seen Texas v. White. Either that, or it was edited incorrectly. In Texas v. White, the United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional, while commenting that revolution or consent of the States could lead to a successful secession. emph added. I’ll take the SCOTUS opinion thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2017, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/777 "2017-01-09T17:51:34Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Of course they will. Who pays, disproportionately, for all the entitlements the US enjoys? Problem is that the US already promised, in writing, to support the same. No, the US has never promised to let any state secede. And even the UN doesn’t think California should be on the list you mention. But again, how are you going to force the federal government to let you secede? > [@](#): > > Probably one state at a time. That doesn’t answer the question. How are you going to convince one state at a time to act against its own interests, as opposed to convincing them to act against their own best interests in bunches? > [@](#): > > I strongly suspect Trump will do more to turn even the reddest states, even those with the most FEMA trailers, into self-governing activists. Also doesn’t answer the question. ‘Trump is a crappy President, therefore we should let CA stop sending us money’? That doesn’t make sense. Regards, Shodan ---
**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 9, 2017, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/778 "2017-01-09T17:52:19Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > And you’re sure they won’t in the future? Yes. I’ll wager every cent I have that the UN will not designate California a colony of the United States. Will you wager anything? > [@](#): > > One that votes to be independent? The will of the people to self-govern, as demonstrated by a successful vote, changes nothing and is indistinguishable between the Hawaiian/Alaskan issue? You really don’t see any difference? Countries may be formed by means other than the UN designating them to be colonies. Most new countries were not colonies, they were parts of other countries that wanted to be independent. However, that process has LITERALLY NOTHING TO DO with the part of the UN Charter you keep referencing. For example, South Sudan wanted to separate from the rest of Sudan. At no point were they designated a colony under Chapter XI. At no point was Sudan “forced” to let them go because of Chapter XI. There was simply (a civil war) and then a political settlement. Sudan was not compelled by Chapter XI to make South Sudan independent. This is the hazard of a little knowledge: you’re going on and on about this sooper-dooper UN provision that will force the US to bend to California’s will, but it has literally nothing to do with how non-colonies become independent countries. But you just can’t give it up! Sad! ---
**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 9, 2017, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/779 "2017-01-09T17:56:25Z")
Except the states have not given consent, so that’s a meaningless phrase until and unless they actually do. We could re-institute slavery “with the consent of the states”. All that means is that constitution can be changes “with the consent of the states”. But the constitution, as it exists today, does not provide a path to secession. Revolution is, by definition, an extra-constitutional action. So yes, the constitution “could” provide for session. At present, though, it doesn’t. Note the word “could”, not “does”. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2017, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/780 "2017-01-09T17:56:27Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > As long as the US has veto power, yes. That’s an assumption. All the political experts, all the pundits, all the polls, just about everyone with an opinion **promised** there was no way Trump would win, in fact, Hillary would win by a landslide while Trump went down in flames. Were they correct? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467.md?page=38) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467.md?page=40)