You’re so far off base here a response isn’t even required.
You don’t understand nations or history is all. CalExit’s desires are irrelevant.
Speaking of being on base, San Diego Naval Base is on land owned by the US Navy, not leased or some other temporary arrangement. So any attempt for CA to try to claim the land would involve them appropriating property owned by the US government with a sensitive military installation on it. As I said before, the last time a state decided to declare itself independent and then to seize a US military base in its territory was South Carolina in 1861, and I think we all know how well Fort Sumter worked out for them.
I’ll remember this one for use again real soon, I’m sure. 
It’s more than just a naval base. 45% of California land is owned by the federal government.
But we’ll just let them keep it for free, because the UN Charter and tariffs and stuff.
Regards,
Shodan
While it wouldn’t really happen, it would be amusing if Calexit managed to get a majority, and the feds said ‘you can secede with all of the land that isn’t owned by us’ and just straight up kept 45% of the state.
You keep coming up with violence in your responses.
You’re not alone, let’s see what’s come up in this thread. These are some of the responses I’ve read here.
- We’re going to bomb your ports and port cities.
- We’ll just march in and end this, with violence. How dare you vote to leave.
- We’ll arrest you and put you in jail if you leave CA for income tax issues.
- We’re going to cut off all your water.
- We’re going to let you be invaded by the bad countries. We won’t help.
- We’re going to take your bank assets.
- We’re not going to trade with you, you’ll go broke!
- You’re going to start a civil war, and you’ll lose.
- Seceding is illegal.
- You can’t seize our forts and federal lands because civil war.
- We’re going to take 1/4 of your Social Security checks.
Yep, reading that list makes America sound like a wonderful place to live. Once you’re in, you’re not getting out (alive) and certainly not with any money.
Anyway. One more time. CalExit is NON VIOLENT. No fucking civil war, no seizing anyone’s assets, no guns, no bullets, no threats of bombs, etc.
Why no civil war? Because it’s not the way we do things in the 2016.
You still think secession is illegal, go read Texas v. White. Secession is legal and the Supreme Court has ruled that it’s constitutional under certain circumstances. (Ironically, revolution is one of them, go figure)
Military Bases in CA. Awesome. But wait. The adjacent airspace you need to fly into and out of your bases, the California’s roads and highways you’ll use to get there, the Coastal waters off CA that you’ll want to sail through. Use of California’s resources such as water and power, police and court systems. Yep, I’m betting this is something that just might be reduced to a treaty, like it is with American bases in other countries
Federal prisons? Same problems. What about extraditing violent felons? Treaty?
** Pantastic**, you need to get this “civil war” notion out of your head. We want to vote, and follow the rules, all the rules. And SCOTUS has provided such a map for doing so. Okay, non-violent. Got it?
We do have one ace in the hole though. One the voters gave us in November. And, if things go as I expect them to go, I expect CA will be flooded with immigration requests in the first 2 years of CIC Dillweed’s presidency. If the orange maniac gets another 4 years after 2020, I would bet CA becomes very crowded. With Trump at the helm, you’re sailing blindly into uncharted waters, in bad weather, in a leaky boat. That’s not the reason CalExit exists, but I’ll bet it will probably push many voters into the “I vote yes” column. I sincerely hope CA is independent before he starts a shooting war. I’d hate to see CA bombed because of something that idiot caused.
Could you talk for a moment about the 45% of California that is currently owned by the US government? Are you going to pay them for it? Let them maintain ownership of almost half your new country? Try to steal it?
This whole CalEx notion just underscores some of the fundamental reasons the previous Democratic POTUS candidate lost the election: Unbridled hubris with an out-of-touch mindset. Anyone seriously believing this idea is even remotely possible much less desirable, is truly delusional. But hey, the spoiled brats gotta have their tantrum, so whatever…
I guess the same thing could have been said about the Declaration of Independence. I mean, wanting something better than what is offered is so wrong, but hey, the spoiled colonists and such…
Yes, because we live in the real world, where committing open rebellion against a government gets met with force, whether police or military. Seizing the 45% of California owned by the Federal Government is not going to happen peacefully.
The decision only allows secession through consent of the other states. In other words, you can’t just take a Calexit vote and leave, you have to get the rest of the country to agree to it. Which is not going to happen. Or you can try to have a successful revolution, but that blows your whole ‘nonviolent’ idea out of the water.
This whole thing gets sillier and sillier the more you talk about it.
Once again. There is no “open rebellion.” There is a vote. There is a difference that you keep missing. Vote vs open rebellion. They really are different things.
Additionally, there will be no assault, attack, bloodshed, brutality, cruelty, disorder, disturbance, fighting, struggle, terrorism, ferocity, frenzy, fury, murder or mayhem.
Clear now?
You know, I listened to every expert in this country, every poll, every pundit tell us that Trump has no chance of winning, none at all. It would never happen. The experts all but guaranteed it.
We all know how that turned out.
So pardon me when I disbelieve your opinion about what might and what might not happen.
Oh, and we don’t need the consent of all the other states. 100% consent is not required.
From this point on, I intend to dismiss any comment you make concerning a revolution, violence or a civil war as uninformed and too far off point to discuss.
What about the 45% owned by the federal government? Is that too far off point to discuss too? Or are you just ignoring it because you don’t have an answer?
Voting to leave the country and then acting on it is engaging in open rebellion. They are the same thing.
You didn’t listen to every expert and every pundit, then. For example, 538.com was criticized on this board for giving Trump a 1 in 3 chance of winning, and other experts came up with similar numbers. There was an LA Times poll that was laughed at on here for predicting a Trump win, among others. Sure, there were a lot of ‘experts’ and polls saying that trump had no chance of winning, but it was not all of them. There were a lot of pundits talking about Trump winning too, though most of them are conservative so maybe you just didn’t listen to them.
You have a tendency to say things that simply don’t match reality, you might want to work on that. Or keep on, since it’s the way to fuel Calexit.
Good for you, you’re already ignoring a lot of things, but adding more shows dedication. Are you going to ignore the fact that the Federal government owns 45% of the land in California too?
Here, I’ll repost this because it seems you missed the post above the one where you first asked the question.
*Military Bases in CA. Awesome. But wait. The adjacent airspace you need to fly into and out of your bases, the California’s roads and highways you’ll use to get there, the Coastal waters off CA that you’ll want to sail through. Use of California’s resources such as water and power, police and court systems. Yep, I’m betting this is something that just might be reduced to a treaty, like it is with American bases in other countries
Federal prisons? Same problems. What about extraditing violent felons? Treaty? *
It’s pretty obvious the US will need treaties allowing/specifying the use of those bases, airspace, etc. Flying armed military aircraft over an independent nation requires a treaty. Pretty common I presume. Same with operating warships in the territorial waters of an independent nation. Treaties that specify the rights and obligations of each party. As well as what the appropriate fees and payments for the granted rights might be.
What’s really funny, and you wouldn’t realize this unless you were from California, is that a great portion of the “federal land” (much of the BLM land) is the friggen desert. Mojave Desert, Death Valley National Park. etc. Some of the hottest, driest places on earth. Not highly inhabitable actually. but you’re welcome to build a utopia there if you like.
What does that leave… 20 percent of the state is in national forests and 15 percent under the Bureau of Land Management (mostly deserts).
Mendocino National Forest is fairly large. We’ll need that, that’s where much of the illegal marijuana was grown in the past, probably still is. Reportedly some of the best marijuana in the nation I’m told. Sierra National Forest is even bigger, Yosemite, Kings Canyon, Sequoia, all nice but not populated with much else than the California Black Bear, which incidentally, is the symbol of another of California’s independence movements. Free the Bear."
I understand the Sierra National Forest produces some pretty good marijuana too, I don’t know as much of it is shipped out of state to satisify the national demand. It offers non-land owners a place to practice their agriculture. So let’s leave that in with the Feds least some private owner objects to such activities.
So that’s most of the land you speak of. Yep, you really got CA by the short hairs there. Whatever will we do.
Am I to understand from all of this, that you’re willing to #CalExit with just 55% of the state? That you’re OK with the federal government retaining ownership of the 45% of California that it owns today?
A fair bit of the DoD land is actually along the coast, which I would assume entitles RemainderUS to it’s own territorial waters (admittedly, I’m not up on the specifics of the law of the sea treaty stuff, and I’m not sure it would apply anyways since neither USA nor RoCA have ratified it). Point is: there might not be a need to navigate through California’s territorial waters. In fact, it may be the RoCA that finds itself needing to navigate through RemainderUS’ territorial waters.
I’m from Utah. I’m intimately-acquainted with what your typical BLM plot of land is like. I’m not talking about building a utopia there, I’m talking about America retaining ownership of it.
In fact, there are areas that we’d probably insist the Feds kept. The Salton Sea area is one.
It has to do with hydrogen sulfide created from decaying matter below the receding water, and an acrid dust being blown east towards Phoenix and belong. Hopefully the Feds will get their asses in their and clean up their mess.
Utah has 65% Federal ownership. You okay with that?