Also, even if you want to make a legalistic argument involving the UN Charter, U.S. Treaties don’t supersede the U.S. Constitution, they can supersede U.S. statutory law, but not the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has ruled secession is an unconstitutional state act.
There was a group of Republican chicken littles who feared just what you seem to suggest, that innate constitutional provisions could be overridden by treaties, but that’s never been sustained in law, and as much as the Supreme Court has ever ruled on it has been to say that the treaty power has qualifications and specifically is limited the same as regular statutory law in that it cannot directly violate the U.S. constitution.
Our allies will rest well knowing that the POTUS is empowered to pick and choose which/when treaties and charters are valid or when they can be ignored.
That was my speculation on the end of a long and crazy series of unlikely hypotheticals, but if California tried to secede at that point we would definitely use force to stop it and it definitely would not be the end of the United States. You know we’ve done this before, right?
The reality is if this even gets to the stage where a vote is scheduled there will likely be lawsuits to stop it, and the matter will probably result in a Supreme Court ruling forbidding California to proceed. If it did so California’s officials would be violating Federal court orders and would be arrested–this would actually go down long before any vote ever occurred.
That ruling includes “unless ratified by Congress.” Congress has already ratified those conditions (self-governing) when they ratified the UN Charter. This ratification is after the SCOTUS ruling you’re relying on.
Maybe, but I certainly didn’t employ it, so let’s keep your comments toward me directed to what I’ve said here. It’s long been an issue in international law, specifically with the United States, that our executive can sign agreements that aren’t legally enforceable in U.S. courts. That isn’t the norm, but there is no easy way to change it in our system of laws.
What isn’t at doubt really is that treaties don’t supersede the U.S. constitution, and the U.S. constitution disallows secession.
Please don’t take anything I say as directed at you personally. I don’t intend it that way and I apologize if it comes across that way.
Show me where in the US Constitution secession is disallowed? I’ll agree that it’s not specifically allowed, but no where is it specifically disallowed. I believe the Constitution requires all powers of the Federal government to be specified, and those not specified to be retained by the states. Since secession is not specifically mentioned, it follows that it’s a right reserved by the states.
Are you serious dude? You’re making the argument Jeff Davis and his cronies did. Texas v White resolved it wasn’t legal. Antonin Scalia was quote as saying that “if there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.”
I’m asking if California has a special claim to independence that other states don’t have. Your question to me about the vote is a total non sequtir.
Maybe if I ask the question differently: all states currently play by the same rule book. By some measues, some states do better with some rules, but those states do less well by other rules. This is equally true of all states. If all states can find reasons why they do not have an advantage over every other state in every way, by your logic, they might have a good case to pursue independence.
From my point of view, the fact that any one state is NOT better than all other states in all respects is convincing evidence that states are, overall, treated fairly. As we have all learned as children, “fair” doesn’t mean “better than anyone else at all times.”
So if all states are treated fairly overall, what special claim does California enjoy to independence that other states - who are also treated with overall fairness - cannot claim?
Prior to Congress ratifying the UN Charter, that decision would apply. But Congress spoke when they agreed to the terms with respect to when a people can declare their desire to be self-governed.
The decision you’re referring to specifically allows secession -if- Congress approves. Congress has, therefore, already approved.
This is why the US will be in between the rock and the hard spot. It will take some real dancing on the world stage, with the world watching, to circumvent that approval.
Perhaps I’m not understanding your question. California isn’t claiming any special privilege in this. California is asserting that we are not self-governed (as may other states I suppose) and wish to bring forth a referendum for independence so that we may become self-governed. If Texas chooses to follow suit, I will support the will of Texas voters, as I will with the will of the voters of any other state who choose to vote on a similar issue.
In that regard, California isn’t better than any other state. California is better suited than most states to be independent due to the physical characteristics of the state. Several deep water ports for commerce, International airports, etc.
The US is a republic, which is a self-governing form of government. You are attempting to form a Republic of California. Either a republic is self-governing, in which case the UN charter has been fulfilled, or it isn’t, in which case the clause in the UN charter does not give you the right to form a republic.
See above. Also see 1865 - you do, in fact, need the rest of the US in order to secede.
If you secede, we won’t send you any more money. At all.
You’ve been corrected on this enough that more won’t help. You are going to get awful thirsty in La-La Land.
The US may be self-governing, but California isn’t. I’ve already pointed out why in no fewer than 4 different posts. Look Infra.
The UN charter isn’t fulfilled. If our vote for independence isn’t accepted by the US government, proof positive that we’re NOT self-governed.
PLEASE, don’t send us any more money. You’re sending us 16 billion less than we’re paying now. We’ll keep ours. you keep yours.
The water? Again, 4 or 5 times infra. You planning to import water to all the military bases in CA? Do they need water? What about the Federal prisons? What about the Federal buildings hooked up to municipal water supplies? You planning on using CA water or trucking it in? California water is very expensive you know.
Corrected on this?
The 1865 thing has been explained 4 or 5 times infra as it relates to this.
You’d be right if this was the 19th century. But your argument fails mid 20th century. Again, infra.
Not to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like you agree that California isn’t being discriminated against in any particular way, as compared to treatment of other states. It is just that you no longer wish to associate with other states.
If you more or less concede that California has no grievance that 49 other states cannot also make a claim to (though the details of each claim may differ from each state) why do you think the United States would agree to negotiations to allow one state to exit? That would be a nation signing its own death warrant. There is literally no upside for the United States to allow such a thing, irrespective of how the US sees the value of California’s economy, ports, military bases, etc., because 49 other states could use the exact same arguments to entirely dissolve the US.
One key to successful negotiations is to see things from your interlocutor’s point of view, and move toward a solution that makes all parties winners. It’s perfectly clear that if California were to want to leave, the US Government has a say in whether that happens. So, why should the USG allow California to exit?
It sure seems like you’re under the impression that you can just force this on the USG as a fait accompli. I have literally no reason to think that you have provided a compelling case, either legally, morally, or logically, that national governments have no say on whether constituent political subdivisions stay in a union or not.
Mind you, I grew up in Berkeley, which would have gladly declared national independence had that been an option, reasonable or not.
Uh, the states are probably more self governing than the Federal government is. The states have sovereignty on a wide number of issues, save for specific powers provided to individuals or the Federal government in the Constitution.
For example, if I get mugged walking down the streets of LA, the Federal government is almost certainly helpless in helping me find justice. I must turn to the state for that. That’s an example of how the US as a Federal body is not fully self-governing, just like states as political subdivisions are not fully self-governing either.