Or, who knows, they might move the ocean to the other side of California. Or, they could build more land to the west of California and not allow CA access to the Ocean. They could even pass federal legislation declaring that all the oceans are burning our CA dog. (as long as we’re playing the wild ass guess game)
Own away. Wait, you don’t expect CA to provide municipal services and police protection, as well as fighting those friggen yearly fires do you? You’re going to take care of all that right, and be a good neighbor? Water, and electricity you can import I suppose, and you can pack up your sewage and ship it back east, or do you expect CA to pay for all that? Yes, I think there would be room for treaties.
I strongly suspect the US will want treaties. Treaties that cover all this. Treaties that prevent things like CA leasing the northwest end of Catalina Island to a Chinese concern to build a radar facilities to track Climate change in this hemisphere.
Except you’ve said that Calexit won’t be rebellion or civil war, but will be done by getting the consent of the rest of the US. Which means that it won’t be an independent California negotiating with the US, it will be the State California trying to make deals that will convince the other states that they are better off with California leaving. So in the hypothetical, CA isn’t bargaining as equals, they’re making all of these arrangements while still subject to Federal law and with no way to actually secede unless the terms are good enough for the other states.
I hate it, but I recognize it as the reality. I’m actually involved with an organization called the American Lands Council that has been trying to get the Feds to turn over significant portion a of the western states’ land to state control, so I can tell you from personal experience: they’re pretty dead set on not selling or giving the land away. That’s why I brought it up. It would seem to pose a not-insignificant obstacle to Calexit, but you just hand-wave everything away with “treaties”, so i’m less-and-less convinced you’ve given any of this any serious thought.
Maybe I missed it earlier in the thread - what about the residents of CA that don’t want to secede? If I as a Californian appreciate the federal constitution and the protections it affords me, as a citizen of the US, I’d expect my government to defend my interests.
I suppose I’d sell my land to the new Nation of California, for …a bajillion dollars. That’s USD.
I didn’t want Trump to be my POTUS either. I’m sort of stuck with it because that’s the way voting works. If you live in CA, you can always vote against it when it appears on the ballot.
If you want to remain a US citizen, and live on RoCA, you’re free to. You won’t lose your US citizenship because CA became independent. In fact, you can continue to pay Federal Taxes if you choose not to renounce your US citizenship.
*In 2012, Californians paid $292,563,574,000 in US federal taxes. During that same year we received back approximately $0.78 for every dollar paid while states like Mississippi and Louisiana, that constantly complain about “entitlements,” got more that $2 for every $1 they paid. That extra money came out of our pockets. *
Who is it again that’s protecting your (our) interest?
Without much effort at all on the part of promoting this, CalExit polls show 41% of Californians support seceding.
I’ve read it and can’t find it. Yes, there is mention that revolution can allow secession, but that is a simple acknowledgement that military success trumps existing law. The opinion is replete with declarations that unilateral secession by any state is illegal and void. Could you point to what you are arguing?
I’ll say again since so many are having trouble finding the relevant part.
“except through revolution or through consent of the States.”
Unanimous consent isn’t required as some seem to think. Will that be east, no it won’t, but it’s no more impossible than a sexual predator, former reality TV star, with 0 political experience becoming President of the US.
Give that predator a few months in office and and I’m betting the list of states wanting out grows considerably.
I think we agree on this for the most part. However, IF CA were an independent nation, the bargaining point would change significantly. I honestly believe the matter would end up in court, but problem is, whose court?
Interestingly, the Feds do sell land back. MCAS El Toro for one was sold back. (a former Marine Corps base in CA) Naval Training Center in San Diego no longer under Fed jurisdiction, but I’m unsure if that was a lease or a sale. The US really didn’t want the obligation of maintaining and policing the abandoned property. Also George Air Force Base, San Bernardino County, Fort Ord, in Monterey County, Castle Air Force in Merced County area all closed. Plus more I’m sure. I really don’t know what the current status those bases is, but I’d bet they were sold, leased or given to local authorities.
You would need 2/3 of each house of congress and 3/4 of the states to support it. You don’t even have 2/3 of your own state to support it, even if you count every HRC vote as a vote for secession.
Even if you did get a few extra votes and the rest of the nation acquiesced, your state would be balkanized. 31 counties for HRC and 25 for Trump.
During the civil war, the entire south, almost unanimously (of course, counting only those who could vote) wanted to secede and we see how well that worked out.
Is this thread a joke or are you serious about this effort?
Not at all. CA cast 4 million more votes for HRC than they did for the orange maniac.
HRC, nationally received less than 3 million votes more than OM.
Democratic; Hillary Clinton, 8,753,788
Republican; Donald Trump, 4,483,810
Now, look at the Total results.
Trump; 62,979,879
Hillary Clinton; 65,844,954
So if the US cast 3 million more for HRC, and 4 million of those votes came from CA…see where this is going. It appears CA was just not strong enough to save the nation from this National Nightmare 1.0. CA is pretty united.
You point is of no concern.
Irrelevant. Things and methods are different today.
41% of CA people surveyed support the idea, and that’s with very little public exposure.
I’m not seeing how that is responsive to my question. I’m not describing taxes or what not. If CalExit were to succeed, I assume there would be some kind of constitution adopted. I happen to like the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution. That seems to be an unresolvable conflict. In that as a citizen of the U.S., I expect them to protect my interests and defend me from foreign threats. A new CA annexing my land for their own purposes would constitute one of those threats.
Granted, if the U.S. constitution were to be amended to allow the action you contemplate then I suppose the U.S. would acquiesce - but not until then.
That has been defined by SCOTUS in Texas v White, and the framework for secession is provided therein. SCOTUS is the ultimate authority on the US Constitution, so it doesn’t appear that there is any arguable Constitutional prohibition to secession, in fact, none can be found in the document itself.
*According to the tenth amendment to the Constitution, anything that is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution is allowed. Therefore, all states have a Constitutional right to secede. However, two new constitutional questions concerning secession emerged shortly after the Civil War ended…
*
Yes, Vermont has a movement as does Alaska ( Alaskan Independence Party) WA & OR, (Cascadia Independence Movement) HA, (Hawaii Independence Party) NH
(Foundation for New Hampshire Independence) and TX (Texas Nationalist Movement).
If you’re referring to the CA Constitution, CalExit will not repeal a provision of the constitution, instead, it will amend it to conform with the desired goal.
Indissoluble. To say that that this case which declares the union to be indissoluble to contain the framework for succession is strange. Further:
(my bold)
Perhaps this is what you were referring to: * ‘except through revolution or through consent of the States’.* You don’t seem to be proposing revolution, so are you suggesting through consent of the States? That would require constitutional amendment, since you see, the Union is indissoluble.
That dispenses with Texas v White. Now onto the 10th amendment.
The idea that anything not expressly prohibited is allowed is not an accurate interpretation. The 10th has two clauses: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The first essentially says the federal powers are limited to only the powers granted in the Constitution. The second says that the states and people may exercise their reserved powers. Secession is not among them.
I’m referring to the U.S. Constitution. The one that says the U.S. government has the power to suppress insurrections.
Right! Secession isn’t even mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore it, or preventing it, must not be a reserved power.
*“New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.” *
Seems they omitted a provision in that paragraph re: no state shall be permitted to withdraw from the union once admitted. Again, it’s silent on the matter.
Insurrection; a violent uprising against an authority or government.
For the 500th time, there is no fucking violence involved in this. Voting and working within the framework of Texas v White is absolutely permissible, constitutional and legal. That should be clear by now.
SCOTUS has ruled on the point.
*“When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.”
*
emph mine.
Do we really need to keep revisiting this or shall we simply accept that SCOTUS has ruled on this and provided the framework for secession. I find it ironic that SCOTUS finds rebellion constitutional in secession efforts. But none the less, a lawful avenue for secession is provided. This is unarguable.
ETA, a quick goofle search provides several legal authorities agreeing that this is in fact an avenue, albeit a hard one to follow.