I think you need to start claiming that the US didn’t create joinder with you, under the Admiralty code.
Regards,
Shodan
Uh oh, looks like Morgenstern continues to show he has no clue about any of this. It’s also worth noting even members who WEREN’T original charter members actually agree to the charter as part of joining the UN. The contra argument would be like saying Arizona isn’t governed by the U.S. Constitution since it’s not one of the original 13 states that sent delegates to draft the original.
Yeah, I hate to say it but we’re in Sovereign Citizen territory now. At first I didn’t get that sense, since Morgenstern seemed reasonable enough, and at least the basis for the argument isn’t “out of hand invalid.” But a Sovereign Citizen often starts with a premise that is, arguably a logical conclusion of written laws or jurisprudence, but then ignores any contrary evidence. This is particularly troubling in the context of a judicial system, where we have literally thousands of cases where Sovereign Citizen arguments are rejected by courts and SCers end up fined/jailed for their various nonsenses.
It’s the same with this, Morgenstern believes he’s found some magic loop hole in the text of the UN Charter, except we actually have over 60 years of experience and evidence for what the charter really means. If we look at the body of UN General Assembly resolutions, UN actions and etc, it’s quite obvious the UN as a body does not endorse secession movements, and in fact condemns them more often than not.
Even going off of the “magical thinking of this mystic text” (aka Sovereign Citizen style argument), the UN Charter also states that the territorial integrity of sovereign states is never to be questioned or interfered with by other powers. So you’ve actually created a catch-22 situation in which you’re relying on some unproven (in over 60 years of history) assertion about what the UN Charter means in a legal context, which itself if it were true would directly contradict another part of the UN Charter at least in terms of your broader argument–that it’d “cause problems” for the United States if it didn’t allow secession. The UN Charter explicitly says it wouldn’t–because it forbids UN members from involving themselves in issues relating to the territorial integrity of other states.
According to the UN, yes.
This is factually incorrect. Federal judges are appointed by the Presdient, which Californians get to vote for every four years, and are subject to the advice and consent of the Senate including the two California senators. In fact, one of your senators will be the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, a position from which she can influence the Senate’s consideration of nominations, and has filibustered judicial appointments many times in the past.
This is YOUR definition of self-governed, but it is NOT the UN’s definition of self-governed. The UN’s definition relates to former colonial territories, where, to use one example, police forces may have consisted of people not from that country or the people from that country would not be allowed to run the police forces. This is not the case with California, obviously.
One of your senators is a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee and regularly talks about her ability to steer Federal money to local use – Cite, in which a Federal facility will now be able to work more closely with California non-profits to address homelessness in LA. Your other Senator has a key role in drafting transportation bills that dictate which road projects get built and which ones do not – cite. Claiming that your elected representatives have “basically no say” in how Federal funds are spent is straight up, 100%, unadulterated bullshit.
No, because California isn’t a former colony, so Chapter 11 doesn’t apply.
People in former colonies. Not Californians.
The UN specifies the list, which I have provided, and California ain’t on it. Former colonies are.
It did not make the promise that you think it did, as I have cited.
Nobody in the world cares about this. Seriously.
Shall we make a bet? Say, $500? In American currency, that is.
There’s a higher chance that I travel to the ISS on a rocket by March of 2019 than there is that California will both hold and vote in the affirmative on a secession motion.
It’s a little unclear to me, but aren’t you offering two contradictory claims here?
I think he’s saying that the federal government won’t use force because it learned its lesson after Ruby Ridge and Waco. Apparently the implication is that a log cabin full of morons is equivalent to a very large state.
Don’t laugh. Chapter π of the UN Charter guarantees you a free ride into space, anytime you want it.
“Due to an unfortunate typo, Martin Hyde was sent to ISIS on a rocket.”
Still sounds more plausible than #CalExit
The only chapter 11 that’s relevant here is the one from bankruptcy law by metaphor, and that’s because the idea that Russia and China would be ‘very vocal’ in support of a secessionist region is intellectually bankrupt. Well, that and saying that Russia and China’s help is neither expected nor mentioned in one sentence, then mentioning that you expect it in the next.
and to heap upon the pile, Morgenstern steadfastly refuses to acknowledge or recognize that there is a very large emotional component to the entire scenario on both sides. Indeed, as presented in this thread, Calexit is entirely an emotional decision, a temper tantrum (as has been pointed out at least once I believe), and all the arguments attempting to persuade us of the correctness and legality of it amount to nothing more than poorly thought out justification and excuse making. On the other side of the argument, as has been pointed out directly and indirectly, there are an awful lot of people who are emotionally invested in keeping California in the Union. Not because they care about California, because they care about the continued existence of the United States and are going to react in a completely opposite fashion than Morgenstern seems to think they will to any threat to its continuing existence.
The real issue with California is that nothing about their way of life is threatened by a Trump administration. What is threatened is California’s ability to dictate to Alabama. Which becomes a lot harder if California isn’t part of the US.
The word ‘colonies’ is never used in the Chapter. The chapter provides…
Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government
The rest of your post is merely your opinion. I don’t accept that, sorry.
True. It’s a long shot. But it’s started.
Right now, without ANY publicity or effort on the part of YesCalifornia to explain this to the people of California, 24% of the people support secession. The numbers for the US range from 22 to mid 30s percent favorable. This is a start. It may take several years as the marijuana legalization effort took. It may spread to other states.
To those who think this is motivated by Trump’s success I point out, ONCE AGAIN, that this movement predates Trump. Ridding ourselves of a system that could allow someone like Trump to gain office is just another very large plus to the movement.
As I’ve pointed out. YesCalifornia feels that Californian’s are much better able to manage our;
- Peace and security
- Elections and government
- Trade and regulation
- Debt and taxes
- Immigration
- Natural resources
- Environment
- Health and medicine
- Education.
These are the reasons YesCalifornia exists.
People invested in keeping CA in the union? Absolutely. But Californian’s should control California’s future. That’s what this is about.
No. Honestly we want out of the conundrum entangling our right to be a free and independent people. Free of the control of a wasteful, inefficient bureaucracy that sucks California’s assets away to support recipient states and an ever growing, our of control, federal budget. That’s just a few of several reasons.
But you’re correct. Trump isn’t the reason for the movement. Although, I expect, Trump will motivate many to support it as time goes on.
The Texas secession movement started before Obama and probably had similar support.
At the end of the day, despite all the drama around the debate, marijuana legalization is a minor policy change. Comparing it to secession in any way is ludicrous.
It’s quite consistent in the sense that China and Russia would love to have a little ammunition to use against the US when the US argues against their evil deeds.
Actually, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic was. Not the Ukraine. The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic dissolved in 1991. It doesn’t exist.