Frankly, I could care less what Louisiana and Mississippi do. Let the people of Louisiana and Mississippi decide what they want to do and more power to them.
We’ve gone over the secession reasoning, the UN charter, and the other leverage previously. But the bottom line remains, CA does not need the US. Period.
A critical point. How are you going to pitch this idea to the blue states? Even if the red states all agreed that the Union would be better off without California - a tough sell in itself - by agreeing to cut California loose the blue states would be significantly reducing liberal power and population in the remaining US, as well as eliminating some of their more established politicians and fundraising sources. They’d be cutting their own throats to agree to such a thing. And no, they won’t all just pack up and move to California before the split.
Like it or not, we’re all in this together for now. It’s possible that the US will eventually split up at some point, but I’ll bet you that it won’t be in the next decade and if that day does come it will not be an amicable divorce.
Well, except for that little sticking point of needing 38 states to approve their secession, right?
That’s pretty much the way the US solves its problems right? Land of the free right?
Divisive bullying is now what America is about?
I’ve been here longer than you, and I don’t have any terminal diseases that I know of.
So are we all set?
Oh, I guess you missed the part about the UN charter, and Chapter 11 therein. Wherein the US agreed to, and Congress ratified provisions about a people’s right to be free.
Of course, the US could always break their promise because…
I suspect Trump will be happy to have 55 less blue votes in Federal elections. And Trump’s bottom line… his assets…
At 52 stories, 555 California Street towers over San Francisco as the city’s second tallest skyscraper and one of its most iconic business addresses. Built in 1969, the building formerly known as Bank of America Tower was designed to represent the bank’s success, power, and wealth. Currently home to many high -profile occupants, the building is a business mecca as well as a city landmark.
Guess who owns 30% of that?
So either U.S. constitutional amendment or constitutional convention whereby the entire U.S. constitution is replaced. Right. I agree those are available options. But you are wrong when you say that framework is laid out in Texas v White. That’s just very very wrong.
Are you adding a third avenue with this? Of course, it’s wrong that this provides a way for CA to secede. Unless you think Texas v White also describes the UN Charter scheme?
Indissoluble.
Unfortunately, Morenstern has given himself a rather easy out with this wager:
If the referendum does not pass in 2019, the time frame specified above is undefined so theoretically the terms will not come to pass until the referendum is passed. I’m guessing that would be never.
I honestly suspect the next few years will see a significant increase in secession talk. The same “political experts” on this board who promised us Trump could never, possibly even get close to getting elected are saying this will never happen too.
It’s a long road, but it’s mapped out and legal.
The talk of a wager is just a distraction from the subject of this thread. It doesn’t promote the argument and it might even violate California law. That’s why I’m ignoring it.
Now with respect to the 3rd avenue you’ve mentioned. This is not the case. This is not the 3rd avenue but a justification for Congress to act as it has promised to act with respect to this.
*California invokes Chapter 11 of the United Nations Charter, which requires that 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, “to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions.”
*
Which have OR assume responsibility…
Such a request will be made.
Not yet achieved a full measure of self-government.… (Wait until AG Jefferson Sessions invalidates the CA legal marijuana initiative - as well as that in 6 other states, then tell me we’re “self-governed” as the US will claim).
*“to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions.
*
This was signed by the US and ratified by Congress. CA will use that in it’s drive to ask Congress to do what it has promised the world it would do.
Chapter 11 of the UN charter doesn’t matter. Your plan for secession requires the approval of 38 states (and 2/3 of Congress or delegates to a convention of the states). That’s the hurdle you need to clear (after you clear the hurdle of resistance of Californians themselves, which I suspect you won’t).
If, in arguing for your position, you want to try to guilt the rest of us into voting for the CalExit amendment because of the UN charter, that could certainly be part of your argument (not one that I, as a voter, find very compelling, but some might). But Chapter 11 doesn’t control whether I have to vote yes or no to the CalExit amendment. I do.
It doesn’t really matter what Trump wants either. It matters what the majority of people in Utah and Iowa and Maine want.
Are you going to offer us anything in exchange for CalExit, or just count on us all wanting you gone?
Good lord, for the billionth time, that provision is about decolonization, not dissolution of legitimate political unions.
Is that why you’re also ignoring the falsity of your claim about the framework for secession existing in Texas v White and the concept of dissoluble?
Splitting California has been popping up as a mini-movement for as long as I can remember. It’s not ever going to happen. Neither will calexit.
They also have a growing number of California retirees.
Where you’re asked: “Do you have any fruit? Do you have any firewood?” and are either waved through or pointed to the dumpster. Oh, and if you’re towing a boat, they’ll ask if you hosed it off completely. It’s an AGRICULTURAL checkpoint. There is no border control involved. They don’t care what country you’re from or whether you’re there illegally. They only care if you’ve got a box of oranges in the car.
Border control would be a completely different department. In fact it would be a department that doesn’t exist, currently.
OK, that was amusing. You must not watch the same news the rest of us do.
Let me guess. It’s treaties all the way down?
levdrakon, this is right on the edge. I’m going to mod-note it but I’ll be comfortable with a warning if this sort of thing pops up again.
So stop it.
Wasn’t the argument as to whether or not states could secede without the permission of the rest of the country decided back in 1865?
It wasn’t a good idea then and I don’t see why it is now.
But the UN wasn’t around back then.
I’m not sure your point. Are you suggesting the UN would intervene to force the US to accept California leaving?
They can’t do that without the US approving it.
Are you suggesting the UN would compel the US to accept such a secession?
Again, any such measure would get vetoed by the US.
UN Resolutions are mostly non-binding. non-binding resolutions only affect the US’s internal affairs if we incorporate them into law. else they’re worth little more than the paper they’re printed upon. and the one chapter of the UN Charter which is binding is Chapter VII, which deals with aggression between member states.
So what you’re suggesting is that if California wants to leave, and the rest of the union blocks it, the UN is going to violate its own charter to allow California to leave?
Woosh.
It was a joke, based on the absurd notion put forth by backers of this resolution that the UN Charter compels countries to allow sections to opt out by simply voting to do so.
It’s odd that we spend so much time on this MB talking about how dangerous Trump’s policies will be for the future of our country, and yet there are folks who are cheerleading the literal dissolution of the US, as if it were as inconsequential as unfriending someone on Facebook.