Not in the least. We’d simply ask Congress to honor a promise they made to the UN. They are free to honor it, or break their promise. Breaking a promise might not look good on the United State’s resume.
You’ve missed the point. Congress has already approved it. They with either honor their promise to the UN, or they will break it. A record for not keeping your word might not play well the next time the US wants a treaty with another nation.
There is no promise by any country in the UN Charter that undermines the claim of each sovereign state to its incorporated people and territories. There is a goal in the UN Charter to provide sovereignty to people and territories that were deprived of it due to colonization.
Because it says “decolonization and only decolonization” right? It’s about the right of people to be self-governing. There is a list of territories that are within the trust, but the language says…*United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of *…
There will be a request to the UN, that’s without a doubt.
Your argument would be better aimed at the “self-governing” aspect if the charter. Argue that we are self-governing, and I’ll give many examples of why we are not. That’s the potential problem with this, not whether the charter would cover an independent CA.
No country that has gained independence since 1945 has done so under these provisions of the UN Charter except those that were colonies or held in some kind of territorial trust. I provided the list of territories that the UN considers to be the subject of the Chapter 11 efforts several weeks ago, and they are all former colonies or territories.
Finally, you realize this “proposal” predates Trump’s announcement to run by about a year? Trump’s victory just caused a 20 fold increase in supporters.
The people of California are exactly as much self-governing as the people of any other state. Just like the people of Nice are as much self-governing as the people of Paris; and the people of the southern part of San Marino are as self-governing as the people who live in the western part of San Marino.
The problem is that the people of Hawaii were not as self-governing as the people of California, until Hawaii became a state. And when Hawaii became a state, the UN commission in charge of these things redesignated Hawaii from a “non-self governing territory” to a “former non-self governing territory.” If the people in each state are not self-governing, why did the UN remove Hawaii (and Alaska!) from its list of non-self governing territories when they became states?
I’m eagerly awaiting your answer to that specific question.
What kind of liberal reasoning is this? Don’t we (rightly) condemn conservatives for not caring about people in other countries? Besides, what are you going to do if conservatives start moving into California? Build a wall?
This is just so poorly thought out as to be ridiculous. Of course at this point you can’t possibly back down and save face so this silly charade continues on…
So the plan is that you’re going to claim that the US made a promise that no one else, including the UN itself, thinks they made, and expect that to convince 2/3 of a republican dominated Senate and House to approve the measure, then for 38 of the states that you claim are sucking the life out of California to approve the amendment? Even ignoring the silliness of the rest of it, I’m confident more than 1/3 of Congress would gain support from their base by publicly telling the UN not to interfere in US affairs.
The whole ‘oh, you’re being such MEANIES’ line of argument is just absurd, and expecting countries like Russia and China who have significant secessionist movements they actively suppress to support secession is beyond just wishful.
To be fair Pantastic, I DO believe Russia and China would gleefully and with malice aforethought support all manner of secessionist movements in the US. (and possibly do so even if it is in a sub-rosa sort of way).
I think Morgenstern is either very very naïve/shortsighted/willfully ignorant about the realities of this topic and stubborn, or is on an extended whoosh binge with this thread, but to say no other countries, especially China or Russia wouldn’t meddle if they think they can get away with it is, I think equally naïve/shortsighted.
Every neighborhood in America lacks self government by your ridiculous standards. Are we going to have 101241 countries where the USA once was because of some misinterpreted concept?
Yes, the other Blue states won’t agree to California leaving. Nor will those of us who live in Blue areas of Red states. The loss of California’s electoral votes would make Democratic recovery–which I do believe is possible–quite unlikely.
Where would all the refugees to California live? I suppose we could get agricultural work–to replace the farm workers The New California would keep out. Somehow, this movement sounds awfully white…
That won’t be a problem, because we’ll never get there. Californians won’t agree to California leaving. And I say that as one of those Californians.
As for the whole bit about UN Chapter 11, it would be nice for the CalExiters to put up some credible legal expert to advance their cause. As it is, the only place one encounters that idea is on their own website. The fact is, though, they won’t be able to because it truly is out there in “Sovereign Citizen” and “Freeman of the Land” territory. If one isn’t convinced by a plain reading of the text, then one could do a lot worse than deferring to the judgement of Ravenman, who has shown himself to be quite the expert in these matters over the years on this MB.