Capitalism my friend. Trust it to respond.
California has wet years, and dry years. We’re still here. We’ll be here.
Solar, we have more sunshine that we know what to do with.
We’re trying. We’re going to be really nice when we do. You’ll be welcome, on a 2 week tourist visa when you get tired of shoveling snow in the winter. Bring lots of money.
Well, I seem to recall Bush supporting the breakup of the Soviet Union.
Oh but you couldn’t be more wrong.
Once again.
1865 is way before the UN.
The UN has a charter.
The US is a signatory to that charter. Congress ratified that charter.
That charter has a provision about the right to be self-governing.
I’ve pointed out why CA is not self-governing.
If California votes to succeed, and the US does anything to void that vote, then it’s pretty clear California is not self-governing under the provisions of that Charter.
Read the thread, it’s been explained.
California is not. California would no longer be part of the US.
and California would no longer be protected or subject to anything the US Congress does or did.
Not to mention that the U.S. has a long history of supporting self-determination and secession, starting with its own secession from England.
In recent history, Eritrea, Kosovo, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia were all backed by the U.S.
This is probably one of the hard sell points of the referendum. Freedom from the US Congress would be awesome.
And so will California be, for the same reason.
California is part of the US, which is self-governing. Since the US is self-governing, the US as a whole decides if California gets to secede. “One nation under God, indivisible” - remember?
If California decides to secede, and they can come to an agreement with the rest of the US, then they can secede. I doubt if the rest of the US is going to agree to continue to send CA Social Security and water and let them keep all our federal property and force northern California to secede as well. Do you know why West Virginia is a separate state from Virginia?
Regards,
Shodan
Self-governing?
Let me quote YesCalifornia on this.
*Do the people of California enjoy these conditions of self-government?
Not quite. We do choose our own state lawmakers ourselves but Federal laws are the supreme law of the land and take precedence over the laws we enact through our state lawmakers. These Federal laws are enacted largely by 382 representatives and 98 senators who we may not vote for, who exercise supreme political authority from the District of Columbia, and therefore exert great control over California’s affairs from outside our borders.
The budget we have to deal with each year is drafted largely by these 382 representatives we may not vote for. For decades, this external government institution, although the actual representatives themselves have changed over time, has been responsible for treating California like a colony. Whether it be for our gold in the 1800s or presently our taxes, we have been powerless to end this exploitation and so this does not reflect self-government.
The 98 senators we may not vote for have the collective authority to confirm judges to Federal courts that hold jurisdiction over the people of California. These judges have the authority to invalidate any law enacted by our state lawmakers. Since we have no power to reject or confirm these judges ourselves, this does not reflect self-government.
The 98 senators which we may not vote for have the collective authority to ratify treaties. Per the United States Constitution, which was ratified prior to California’s annexation in 1846, treaties are the “supreme law of the land” in California and these treaties superesede our state laws. These treaties subject us to external political authority, namely, foreign governments. Since we have no power to negotiate, reject, or confirm these treaties ourselves, this does not reflect self-government.*
California doesn’t need the “rest of the US to succeed.” At least, not according to the UN charter. The right of people to be self-governing etc.
Social Security is a vested right in those who are receiving it. Those people spend their entire working life paying into it. SS benefits are already sent to recipients living in foreign lands.
The US doesn’t “send” California water. But you’re “federal property” argument brings up a little catch 22 for the US. Where are the US bases in CA going to get water from? Imported? Funny thought.
The US can choose to ignore the UN Charter and any international treaties whenever it wants. The UN has no enforcement agency unless granted those powers by the Security Council, over which the US has veto power. Even if somehow the other nations decided they would go against the Security Council wishes, they wouldn’t stand a chance militarily. So, relying on an unenforceable treaty to support secession is non-starter.
The ONLY thing that matters is if the US as a whole grants the right for California to secede. In the face of the US Military, nothing else would matter. And it would come to that if anything was attempted on the ground. Everything would be ignored.
Can you be so sure that the rest of the U.S. really wants to send its kids to die in California in order to keep it?
It’s not 1865 any more. There is no great humanitarian transgression (a/k/a slavery) to use as a moral rally cry. They only want self-determination and what’s not to like about that?
Yep, and it’s for these reasons that the persons in CA advocating for this look about as loony as the persons in TX that have advocated for this - which is mighty damn loony. Until you can come up with some way to convince the rest of us that we’re better off without you, you’re stuck.
My point is that the states that split still engage in all sorts of mutual commerce, and if Scotland ever leaves the UK, they’ll still be allies and if Catalonia ever leaves Spain they’ll still engage in commerce, and if the UK leaves the EU they’ll still engage in commerce.
I realize the recent election has emboldened those who are still mentally living in 1865, but the world has changed and a secession doesn’t have to entail bloody civil war these days.
Let me clue you in on real world power since they obviously don’t that in school anymore. Those with the power make the rules. The USA has the power. Not California. Not the UN. The USA.
Why does the USA have overwhelmingly dominant force over any other nation or global institution? In part because it’s large. In no known universe does the US deliberately allow itself to be Balkanized. Even if that means killing a million traitors. See Sherman v Atlanta as precedent.
Hey, at least in 100 years your descendents can fly a bear battle flag as a symbol of edginess.
You don’t understand power either. The pentagon and congress and the states do. They realize that once you open the secession box you aren’t closing it. Morgenstern obviously doesn’t understand how West Virginia cam to be or the fact that red portions of California could by his own standards seced from blue California.
And it wouldn’t even take much dieing on the Union side to stop whatever secession occurs. How many in California want to die to leave?
Wow, you make it sound like the U.S. is as amoral as any totalitarian state that has passed through history.
Might makes right I guess.
Can you be so sure that Californians would be willing to kill their neighbors and be killed themselves in order to leave the US?
I realize this is well on its way to being a legendary joke of a thread, but I’m compelled to ask one more question.
Morganstern, is there any reason why this argument for independence applies uniquely for California? Like the few paragraphs you posted about laws made my 98 senators and 350-something representatives - most states have laws made by 98 senators and 410-plus representatives. Objectively, California comes out as having MORE representation than any other state, so it seems every other state has a better claim to independence under this criteria. So why special treatment for your state?
Also, let’s say the referendum loses in California. But New York and Illinois declare independence. You are then stuck in a union that you personally don’t like for probably a long time (countries generally don’t get to hold referendums on independence very frequently) in a country that is increasingly red. What are your own personal plans then?
Read history. And unlike totalitarian states we have elections with the mostly peaceful transfer of power. Aside from a few left wing rioters.
Petulance over the losing an election or a disagreement in tax policy is not a winning moral argument.
Yes. Yes it does.
Those 13 or so aircraft carriers and 1000s of nuclear warheads aren’t for show. Look at the defense and intelligence budgets. Look at the facilities such as the pentagon or the NSA. Those represent tremendous amounts of productivity and wealth to ensure what? The defense of the USA against enemies both foreign and domestic.
Ballots, not bullets. IF we vote to leave, it will be because the majority of us choose to leave. Is that really so hard to grasp?
You’ve just proven that California isn’t self-governing. If California votes for something the US doesn’t like, the US will nuke CA, after all, “Those 13 or so aircraft carriers and 1000s of nuclear warheads aren’t for show.” You and the Fuhrer might see that as an option, but I wonder what the would would think?
This list is from 2009, but it goes to show how the people in Sacramento will spend any and all the money you give them.
Sixteen Billion surplus from not paying money to the Feds? Gone by lunch.
http://monsterhunternation.com/2009/07/14/california-is-broke/