No no no, don’t “get over it”. Move to Guam! It’s the only way to be sure you can finally be free and independent.
This is certainly a novel interpretation. I look forward to reading the briefs and court rulings.
Non-self-governing territory has a specific meaning that you are not aware of.
Hawaii and Alaska used to be in this status. When they were territories and had no representation in our national government. When were they removed from this status? When they became states. There’s literally dozens of examples of colonies and territories removed from this status because they became incorporated into a country, as a state or province or whatnot.
In contrast, integral areas of countries (not colonies!) that sought and achieved independence - like South Sudan, East Timor, Kosovo, Montenegro - were never on the list. Do you get that?
I’ll repeat this again: non-self-governing territories are basically colonies. They are not states with unhappy voters. Period. End of discussion.
Supra.
But, California is self governing in a way that even like Guam isn’t. California elects its own state government. It sends representatives to Congress, which is the national legislature of the US, and those representatives are equal in rights and powers to representatives in every other state. Its people vote for President.
It seems like most of the complaints on the #YesCalfornia people are that California’s on the west coast, and enough votes are counted from states further east that by the time California’s votes are recorded, the election has a winner, and also that the US has policies that the people of California don’t like.
Let’s try not to derail threads on purpose. Guam as a counter example to the substantive issues is fine. Telling other posters to move to Guam is a hijack not conducive to debate.
[/moderating]
Apologies, I’ll try to rein it in.
Again you are being intellectually inconsistent.
The citizens of the USA have self governance at the federal level. To say otherwise is factually incorrect.
Regardless of what state citizens live in they can vote for things at the national level. They are also free to move to any state in the union if they feel that the particular state they are in isn’t optimal.
What you are whining about is that California, which you’ve never defined, does not have a monopoly of power in the USA. Why should any arbitrarily defined subgroup that is nowhere near the majority of the population have total control over the whole group. What you are advocating is completely undemocratic.
Imagine for a moment we had no state borders. Would any random set of people that shared a common trait of any sort be able to say they weren’t self-governing because they didn’t get their way on every issue 100%? No. Especially not in a nation with strong rule of law. Relatively low corruption. And very high political freedom.
This whole want to secede exercise is dishonest and petulant. You can’t even address what happens when counties, regions, or cities within your preferred political boundary decide that THEY want to self govern.:rolleyes:
This is what happens when children in adult bodies go to sanctuary colleges with safe spaces. They think they can withdraw from the world. Let somebody else (the USA) pay the rent (provide the defense) and keep all their toys to themselves. That’s not how things work in the grown up world. This petition and the UN aren’t going to do a damn thing.
The disgusting thing is this isn’t even limited to the left. We have petulant nuts on the right as well and it’s pathetic.
That’s an illogical argument though. The only reason California’s votes “don’t count” is because they are taken for granted as Democratic. And addition is commutative.
[Deleted]
- The UN Charter doesn’t entitle sub-national units to self-government. So that whole point, all of it, is irrelevant. I’ve already linked you to evidence, written by the people who wrote the UN Charter, that make it clear that the right to self-determination does not mean individual units of a country are entitled to a legal right to break away.
The right to self-government is an aspirational goal referring to democratic rule, it has nothing to do with Quebec or Texas or New South Wales being able to split away from their parent country. This is unambiguous, and part of the record of evidence already supported to disprove your assertion–thus without compelling alternative evidence I definitively believe you are wrong on that point.
-
The President of the United States is required to protect all Californians, because they are American citizens. If the government of California, supported by a 50%+1 majority sought to remove the rights and privileges of American citizens (by removing them from American jurisdiction), the Federal government is required to step in and protect them. The President can no more abandon those Californians in the minority of the referendum that he could abandon California to invasions from foreign enemies. Since we’ve proven definitively that the “self-determination” clause of the UN Charter refers to a democratic system of government as an aspirational goal, and not at all any rights of sub-national units, the U.S. Federal Government stepping in to protect its citizens from an insurrection doesn’t violate any promise made in the UN Charter.
-
Depending on the issue, when the United States sues a state, in most cases the appropriate venue would be a U.S. District Court, the District in which it would be held would be based on various factors, but typically it’d be a California district court. Note that this lawsuit would happen whenever election officials sought to put the matter on the ballot. The U.S. would sue to stop it. A Federal judge would rule almost instantly that you aren’t even allowed to put such a thing in a binding referendum as it’s an act of insurrection and illegal, unconstitutional secession. If California carried forward with the plan any and all officials in violation of the court order would simply be placed under arrest, and the courts would simply order that whoever is left to fill their shoes insures the ballots don’t include the illegal insurrecitonary acts. None of this would get to the point of even attempted secession, by the way, because California would back down (actually California would never vote to leave anyway.)
-
You have no evidence, did not know what the self-determination clause of the UN Charter meant, and after being corrected you’ve refused to acknowledge that the UN specifically has clarified that self-determination doesn’t mean secession of sub-national units.
The correct answer is there is no international body agreeable to both sides, one is a sovereign state, and the other is part of a sovereign state. You would not be permitted to appear in an international body, and the international community would outright risk war with the United States if they even recognized California’s right to appear in any form of international tribunal to seek some sort of hearing for separation from the United States.
It doesn’t, end of discussion. I’ve pointed this out many times now. I’ve included a link showing that it doesn’t. There is no right to self-government for sub-national units. There is an aspirational goal of self-determination for people. But it’s really just aspirational. The same time we wrote the UN Charter we were also admitting most of the world’s autocracies to the UN, so obviously we weren’t that serious about it.
None of those would go up in cost because CA would be part of the United States, and would not be permitted to leave, by force if necessary (it wouldn’t be, California would cave instantly.)
It would not go up in cost because CA would be part of the United States, and would not be permitted to leave, by force if necessary (it wouldn’t be, California would cave instantly.)
They won’t have to decide–they’ll remain in the United States the whole time, since California will never be permitted to leave.
None of those would go up in cost because CA would be part of the United States, and would not be permitted to leave, by force if necessary (it wouldn’t be, California would cave instantly.)
Except California wouldn’t be allowed to leave, so none of this would apply.
California wouldn’t be out of the Union.
Collection of federal taxes would continue as California wouldn’t be allowed to leave.
There will be no exit and nothing could be misplayed, since the exit wouldn’t happen.
Except not.
Well, what I actually asked is what would happen if the United States, blocked in court, California’s leaving (U.S. Federal Courts.) Assuming California refused to recognize the validity of these rulings, the U.S. would simply use police power to arrest a bunch of officials in California, and people who knew how to behave would replace them–and we’d continue arresting people in California’s government until whoever was left in charge was such a person.
I was asking what were the negatives from the international community if the United States did this–the answer is, there are no negatives. It’d be considered an internal matter, and no foreign power would dare intercede.
California would never resist violently.
We actually do not “have” to live up to it. Saudi Arabia doesn’t, Russia doesn’t, China doesn’t etc. It’s an aspirational clause. But as a matter of fact the U.S. more or less does live up to the “self-determination” clause of the UN Charter–that refers to the rights of the people to have a say in their government. It doesn’t refer to the right of “states” to secede from a Federal union.
It never made a promise to allow secession, and I’ve proven that with a direct link to a document that explains what the self-determination clause meant–drafted alongside the UN Charter, so that there was no doubt that self-determination didn’t mean secession.
You fundamentally don’t know what you’re talking about–and I suspect you never will, so there is nothing the US has to honor that works in the way you think it is. Essentially you’re extremely wrong, and apparently oblivious to the fact.
And we’re saying you’re wrong because the UN Charter actually clearly has been shown to not allow secession, and the documents I’ve linked to explain specifically that secession of sub-national states is not what is meant by the clause on self-determination.
Also the U.S. has spent the last 60 years or so after signing the UN Charter engaging in torture around the world, sponsoring dictators to overthrow democratic governments we dislike, sponsored assassinations, engaged in horribly destructive warfare in Vietnam that unnecessarily killed hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of civilians…and this sovereign citizen nonsense no one cares about is where we became hypocrites on human rights? (And FWIW, I’m a proud American who thinks we’ve made mistakes, and have an obligation to advocate for human rights regardless of our own past and future wrongs on the matter.)
Also instructive, link, that is the UN Resolution condemning the separation of Crimea from Ukraine. It specifically notes that said separation was invalid because the referendum was not approved by Ukraine, which pretty clearly spells out that at least as far as UN Charter and UN law is concerned, simply being in the UN doesn’t entitle sub-national units any right of secession. This is obvious since Ukraine is a UN Charter signatory, and the UN itself has said that the Crimean secession was invalid because the Ukraine did not consent to it, so clearly simply signing the UN Charter is not viewed by the UN General Assembly as “pre-clearance” for national secession votes.
It’s interesting to see how different people interpret the same poll numbers. I’m surprised that only 57% checked the Don’t_Want_to_Secede box, but Hurricane almost seems surprised in the other direction. (I’ll guess that many of the 23% checking Secede were piqued or whimsical and the number would be less when sobriety is restored.)
I recall a poll in India where “only” 41% supported a pogrom (or such) against Muslims. The headline was “Indians want religious peace.” :eek:
Dude, you are hitching a lame horse to that wagon. Nobody is going to secede. If they were, Texas would have done it a long time ago.
The issue was decided by the Civil War. It’s dead.
Yeah, it’s amusing following this thread to see how it develops. Expecting China and Russia to support secession movements when they actively suppress secession movements themselves and work to make sure such movements are not given international approval is… interesting. About as interesting as the idea that the UN would somehow force the US to accept CA independence when the US has a veto on UN actions. Or the idea that CA independence is absolutely, positively allowed to happen because self-determination… but that parts of CA that don’t like the new CA won’t also just split away themselves.
A moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me.
That beats the UN charter all to pieces.
Regards,
Shodan
Your first statement is the issue as a whole. This is it, this is all of it.
Is California self-governing?
California voters can pass legislation that can be overruled by Federal judges, thus invalidating the will of CA voters. Those judges can be appointed by individuals who CA residents never had an opportunity to vote for. If the will of the voters can be overturned by authority that CA never voted for, then CA is not self-governed. CA pays an more for federal benefits than it receives, yet has basically no say in where and how the money is spent. Self-governing?
The ultimate proof of a non-ability to self-govern would be the US rejection CA’s referendum of independence. Directly ignoring the will of the CA people assuming an affirmative vote. If CA was truly self-governing then the vote would be the end of the issue.
IF CA is not self-governed, then if qualifies under Chapter 11 of the UN charter as a people seeking independence and the ability to self-govern.
CA has the right to vote on secession.
That vote also requires the governor to seek UN recolonization of its struggle for independence. Note that, unlike what many have said, there is NO provision for seeking assistance of Russia or China. Russia and China are not players in this action. Neither is [list of all other contrives in the world].
Secession is not mentioned in the US Constitution. The 10th Amendment vests all powers in the states not specifically given the Federal government. It does not mention secession.
Texas v White is the post civil war case that, apparently, no one here has read yet quote as the reason this will never happen. They are wrong. T v.W does NOT say secession is NOT possible, it says unilateral secession is not legal UNLESS congress approves the secession. That’s quite different than merely saying it is illegal.
Will congress approve the secession? (assuming an affirmative vote)
The US signed, and Congress ratified the UN Charter. Chapter 11 of which provides for and the US promised to SUPPORT the efforts of a people to gain independence. It does not specify (list) the location of those people nor their nationality. Congress has promised to the world by ratifying this charter that it will act in a certain way in this event.
Will Congress keep its promise to the world?
Congress has more to lose by not keeping their word than keeping it. If Congress fails to keep its promised obligation, then the reputation of the US will suffer world wide. I would expect world opinion would see the US as an unreliable nation of hypocrites. This could severely damage the international reputation of the US.
Will CA survive as an independent nation?
Absolutely. Without a doubt. Ignore the chatter about water rights, trade, bombing our ports and port cities, nuclear strikes on the “rebellious” Californian’s, armed military intervention etc. None of that will happen. At the time CA is independent, any act of war against CA will be viewed internationally as an illegal action. The US has more to lose than to gain.
Are there problems?
Yes.
The referendum requires 50% voter participation in a off year election. This may be difficult. If Trump is as bad as expected, this may motivate a large voter turn out.
55% voter approval is required. Typically successful ballot initiatives pass by more than this percentage here.
So how does the US feel about states seceding?
35% of the people in the southwestern states support a state’s right to succeed. AZ, NM and TX are the highest.
24% in CA support secession, yet many of those have not heard of YesCalifornia. We have 2 years change that.
Typically, other states run about 22 to 23% in favor of a states right to secede. I strongly suspect the the next 2 years will see these numbers change dramatically as the new administration fails and flounders on so many issues.
Now, this should quash the “the civil war” resolved the secession issue. It didn’t.
It opened the door to the way it must be done. Texas v. White.
Again, this is not an anti-Trump measure. Although that alone should be sufficient for most states to join it. No one has heaerd of YesCalifornia, even in CA. What other states think is immaterial. We have 2 years to fix this. I assure you , the numbers will be much different in March of 2019.
Russia and China’s help is neither expected nor mentioned. Although I would expect the to be very vocal about the US if Congress fails to heep it’s promise to the world under Chapter 11.
[quote=Martin Hyde]
Also instructive, link, that is the UN Resolution condemning the separation of Crimea from Ukraine. It specifically notes that said separation was invalid because the referendum was not approved by Ukraine, …
[quote]
Was the Ukraine a signatory to the UN Charter? No, there might be your problem.
Another reason to secede. Another reason for our allies to turn their backs on us in pour time of need. Another reason for our enemies to point at us and call us hypocritical. Do you really expect the US to be here forever? It won’t, no government ever has. Calexit is a start. Even if it fails, the movement has stated.
I am eligible for SAR membership due to a distant relative who had the courage to stand up and sign a pledge of allegiance to the colonies (Massachusetts) in the 1770s.
(he was actually an elderly shop keeper, but he was willing to stand up for what he believed in) By signing that document he subjected himself to the death penalty for treason. He signed nonetheless.
He pledged to fight for independence with his musket and his efforts. I’m pledging to fight with my vote. Times have changed. We have means in place to change by peaceful means, by making our opinions heard.
Your argument that California will be prevented for leaving by force fails. That’s the last thing the US would do. Not only wold the world condemn the US, but probably the majority of the US would as well. I would be totally ashamed of my government if it invaded Texas and slaughtered Texans for voting to leave the US. But you’re right, the US does very well in guerrilla conflicts. Vietnam comes to mind, the US decided the rights of the Vietnamese people to unify wasn’t good for the US, so we invested almost 60,000 American lives for nothing at all.
Sovereign citizen is not a concept or an argument that has come from this side of the argument. It’s not applicable.
BTW, what ever happened to those in people in Oregon? Other than the one the Feds shot and killed that is. Waco, Ruby Ridge, the US has president on its side. Kill them before the juries let them go.
Yeah, still not convinced the nation is better off without California. You’re going to have to sell this better. Work on this question, because you’ll have to answer it eventually:
What’s in it for the rest of us?
Because if you don’t want to use your musket, you’ll need to convince the rest of us to let you go.
Congress isn’t going to dissolve the United States because you have contempt for democracy and the poor. Sorry.
Ukraine was one of the original 51 member states of the UN.