Those states didn’t split off - they are still part of the USA.
Regards,
Shodan
Oh noes!111!1 A Hitler comparison!
Who cares what the world thinks? You sound like one of those sovereign citizen types. Go sign your petition. Make sure it wasn’t drafted under a gold fringed flag.
And by your own faulty logic that you keep expressing no state, count, city, or HOA is self governing because federal law takes precedence. Except when states choose to ignore it like California does with its sanctuary cities. We should end that practice as well.
Special treatment? What part of independence are you missing? IF California votes for independence, what do you thin that means?
If other states follow suit, then fine, they are neither part of California, nor are they beholding to California. If California votes it down, and other states vote for it. I’ll support their decision completely.
Eh? Under one person, one vote, the people of Northern Cali are decisively outnumbered by the people of Southern Cali. Why on earth would they agree to a union where they wouldn’t have all the power?
This is a non-response.
By your interpretation, representative democracy is illegal.
British people get to vote for 1 member of Parliament, yet are bound by the decisions of other members.
Swiss people send representatives from each canton to the Swiss Parliament, yet are bound by the decisions of the other representatives.
This is how representative democracies the world over function. Is it your contention that the UN Charter intended to prohibit this form of government?
Who cares what the world thinks? I for one do. Because when the world condemns a nation, history paints a pretty sad picture of that nation. Not a legacy I’d like to leave for future generations to be ashamed of.
Other states are free to do as they please. They are not California’s problem.
What’s a count? How they determine the outcome of a vote?
Nothing else you’ve mentioned is relevant to this referendum.
You’re assuming they voted against it? How did you arrive at that assumption?
…
Not at all. The legality of what exists isn’t in question, the legality of the separation is where the issue lies. I believe voting for separation is a legal act. I believe the results of that vote will change the California’s future.
They are free to do as they choose.
This is not relevant to this situation as it applies to California.
No vote has been held. However, under the principles you’ve espoused (“laws are enacted largely by representatives and senators who we may not vote for”), they’d be placing themselves squarely in the allegedly intolerable position California enjoys today. Have you considered this?
So all that stuff about being denied self-government meant nothing? California isn’t denied self-government, but should secede anyway?
Absolutely nothing. The Constitution of the United States and the Civil War overrule any vote by an individual state. The UN Charter means nothing in light of that. Self-determination means what the majority of the US thinks it means, not what any one state thinks. This amounts to the mice voting to bell the cat.
I’d bet a significant portion of my personal wealth that there will never be a binding vote on this matter. I’d bet the remainder (if my first bet was wrong), that if such a vote were held and voted on in the affirmative, that California will only succeed in finding a number of its top elected officials in Federal prison and a heightened Federal military presence.
No.
Again.
The Constitution vests all rights in the state not specifically given the federal government by the Constitution. Absent any such provision…
From YesCalifornia
If it is demonstrated via honest referendum that the political aspirations of the people of California include independence from the authority, jurisdiction, and influence of the United States Government, then the United States of America must, in accordance with their treaty obligations under the United Nations Charter, “take due account” of that, and not only allow us to develop the self-government that is the cornerstone of the American Revolutionary War and the Charter of the United Nations, but they must even assist us in the progressive development of the free political institutions that are conducive of the type of self-government to which we are entitled as a free people. *
The vote really is stronger than the bullet.
“Refused” would be the response of any U.S. President to that argument. And the U.N. is powerless to oppose him.
Let’s play with this idea for a bit.
Assume a vote for succession is held.
Assume that vote is in the affirmative.
Assume the elected California leaders followed the will of the people and created an the Republic of California as a free nation.
Do federal troops invaded California and used force to “put down a peaceful voter rebellion” by arresting and imprisoning lawfully elected representatives. Do they sent the US military into California and make California an “occupied” country, subject to military rule? Do they shoot protesters like they did at Kent State?
The US has a real problem.
IF they insist that California IS NOT an independent country, then the Constitution of the United States, laws, regulations, policies, and other legal issues limit the use of federal military personnel in domestic support operations. The invasion of CA might be illegal under Federal law.
IF they see California as an independent nation, then, well, act of war and all that.
Wonder what world opinion would be?
Catch 22.
A count? In the context of the post it’s meant to be county. I note you have several typos such as “thin” for “think”, “invaded” for “invade”, “sent” for “send”, and ironically, “succession” for “secession.” But I can grasp context.
Martial law and arresting an official on charges of treason hardly constitutes an invasion. No catch 22. The US can deploy its military wherever it pleases and the constitution doesn’t say squat (well, I suppose the US government can’t deploy them in your house but they hardly need to quarter soldiers there :p), especially if Martial Law is declared.
Not that complicated actually, since Lincoln already did this stuff and the Supreme Court heard a lot of cases about it. The President would declare an insurrection, under the 1807 insurrection act, to be ongoing in California. Federal forces (there are probably enough already in the state) would likely arrest California’s political leadership, my guess is with minimal resistance. There might be some protests, but I doubt it gets violent.
If it does, we’d have a civil war and a lot of people would die, almost all of them in California. But I don’t believe the California National Guard would side with the breakaway Republic in close to enough numbers for California to have a serious military resistance (in the ACW the Federal forces were confronting a real army with real military leaders), and I don’t believe most Americans have the insurgent warfare streak in them, people in comfortable countries don’t like dying for things like this.
There’s a law called the Insurrection Act that says, if there’s an insurrection that violates the rights of citizens of a state or prevents the government from carrying out necessary functions, and the state ii takes place in is unwilling or unable to stop it, the President can send in troops.
Please see the post (infra) that discuss the UN charter, the US signing it, and congress ratifying it.
I don’t believe California will take arms against the US either. But, I don’t believe the US would take arms against California either. I do believe armed intervention would work against the US nationally, and internationally. The world will be watching and I suspect, condemning the US for any violence it employees.
See the above post.
The President would simply ignore the UN charter, and there’s no power for it to be enforced.
If your goal is to split the US apart for realsies, go ahead and send in federal troops and let them open fire. World media would go nuts and Hollywood would be making movies about that for the next 200 years.
With all the gun militia sovereign citizen types running around and a military filled with soldiers who have been actively shooting people for a generation in the ME, firefights are almost inevitable. People will be killed and it will all be on film. Sending in troops should be the last thing the US considers.