I joined, and pledged support to Yes California today.

[Pantastic]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

I am not opposed to a negotiated exit with appropriate concessions made to the remainder US. Not in principle, anyway. In practice I would be hugely opposed since it would mean a fundamental shift in the balance of power in the federal government.

I am, actually. Arguably the main the job of the US government is to protect the rights, lives, and property of US citizens, but in the Calexit scenario the US’s response to a foreign power claiming jurisdiction over US citizens and seizing their property is to just say ‘well, sucks to be you’. Why should I bother paying taxes to Washington if they’re not going to lift a finger against a foreign power hostile to me?

None of the secession supporters here seem to so much as acknowledge the existence of people who don’t favor Calexit but would be subject to it. And they definitely don’t explain why the US government shouldn’t protect those citizens, or why parts of California that have a local majority who favor leaving the new CA country for their own or staying in the US (call them Calexitexit supporters maybe?) can’t just split off at the same time as Calexit is going on.

Secession by simple majority creates an incredibly unstable situation.

[Phrozen]

So the grand plan seems to be:

1. pass a referendum to move forward
2. pass a (CA) Constitutional Amendment
3. pass a (US) Constitutional Amendment
4. treaties appear somehow
5. secession and everyone is happy.

I think step 1 is laughably unlikely, but let’s say 1 and 2 pass muster locally. What’s the CalExit plan for when, not if, 3 fails to get any traction? You might get a couple of the states with independent streaks of their own, like Alaska or New Hampshire, but you won’t get 38. It’s moot anyway sonce you’ll never get through Congress. So what’s the non-violent totally legal plan for that situation? Give up and go home?

[NetTrekker]

@Phrozen

So the grand plan seems to be:

1. pass a referendum to move forward
2. pass a (CA) Constitutional Amendment
3. pass a (US) Constitutional Amendment
4. treaties appear somehow
5. secession and everyone is happy.

I think step 1 is laughably unlikely, but let’s say 1 and 2 pass muster locally. What’s the CalExit plan for when, not if, 3 fails to get any traction? You might get a couple of the states with independent streaks of their own, like Alaska or New Hampshire, but you won’t get 38. It’s moot anyway sonce you’ll never get through Congress. So what’s the non-violent totally legal plan for that situation? Give up and go home?

Why do you think step 1 is laughably unlikely? Because Californians enjoy being disenfranchised? Step 3 would instead be declare independence and commence self-rule. Then see if the federal government can or will try to arrest, convict and jail 10 million people.

[Phrozen]

@NetTrekker

Why do you think step 1 is laughably unlikely? Because Californians enjoy being disenfranchised? Step 3 would instead be declare independence and commence self-rule. Then see if the federal government can or will try to arrest, convict and jail 10 million people.

I was going for Morgenstern’s plan. Your plan seems to be “begin Civil War II and hope for the best.”

[HurricaneDitka]

@Phrozen

I was going for Morgenstern’s plan. Your plan seems to be “begin Civil War II and hope for the best.”

Morgenstern’s plan seems to be ‘hold Congress’ feet to the fire with the UN Charter and chants of “the whole world is watching”'.

[John_Mace]

@HurricaneDitka

Morgenstern’s plan seems to be ‘hold Congress’ feet to the fire with the UN Charter and chants of “the whole world is watching”'.

More like “hold feet to an imaginary fire and hope they feel psychosomatic heat”. No one interprets the UN Charter CH11 that way except the CalExit folks. It’s a complete fantasy.

[Ravenman]

@John_Mace

More like “hold feet to an imaginary fire and hope they feel psychosomatic heat”. No one interprets the UN Charter CH11 that way except the CalExit folks. It’s a complete fantasy.

I’m waiting for the CalExit folks to raise the point that the Raider Nation is unfairly excluded from the United Nations. Tyranny!!!

[Morgenstern]

Sorry, been absent for a bit. The wife wanted to head up the coast for a short vacation and just get away. The California coast, one of the most beautiful drives on earth. The SDMB isn’t a priority in my life, it just fills in at other times so I leave my laptop at home, screw email and the like.

Anyway, I’m pretty tired of answering the same questions over and over, so I’ll just provide the news as we make history here.

Here’s the latest.

Still waiting the CA attorney general’s response to the filing. Public comment period is over. Next is filing with the Sec of State and then, collecting the almost 600,000 valid signatures begins.

About 13,000 Californians have registered to volunteer for YesCalifornia, while the YesCalifornia mailing list is now over 110,000 strong. The California National Party and #FreeTheBear are also joining in supporting this. Silicon Valley financier Shervin Pishevar has indicated that he would finance the initiative if the orange buffoon became king, which - well shit, he did. (and Shervin has the assets to do so)
As to the lack of self-governing - I’ll post this for probably the 3rd, maybe 4th time since people just don’t see the argument.

*Self-government exists when the citizens of a political unit, such as California, rule themselves, control their own affairs, and are free from external government control or outside political authority.

Do the people of California enjoy these conditions of self-government?

Not quite. We do choose our own state lawmakers ourselves but Federal laws are the supreme law of the land and take precedence over the laws we enact through our state lawmakers. These Federal laws are enacted largely by 382 representatives and 98 senators who we may not vote for, who exercise supreme political authority from the District of Columbia, and therefore exert great control over California’s affairs from outside our borders. *

Just wait. Field Marshall Jefferson Sessions (Trump’s pick for AG) and his desire to declare the voters of 6 states wrong with respect to the marijuana initiatives they have passed. Self-governing? Let’s just see how self-governing we are when the Field Marshall declares our will is not his will.

Meanwhile, Trump and his merry band of palace servants, guarded by his private palace guard, will continue tweeting his way in to a trade war with Asia and Mexico more jobs will be lost and by the time our vote for independence comes around it will further fuel our goals.

So, If I didn’t answer your question, it’s probably because I’ve answered similar questions multiple times.

[octopus]

@NetTrekker

Why do you think step 1 is laughably unlikely? Because Californians enjoy being disenfranchised? Step 3 would instead be declare independence and commence self-rule. Then see if the federal government can or will try to arrest, convict and jail 10 million people.

It won’t take that to whip the modern secessionists. Those pushing to secede in California don’t have the fighting spirit of the Confederacy. And they got smashed.

Oh, Morgenstern, you have never been able to answer what prevents counties, cities, towns, villages, and HOA’s within California from going to the UN, opening an embassy and Russia, and applying the same “logic” for their independence.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Morgenstern

Sorry, been absent for a bit. The wife wanted to head up the coast for a short vacation and just get away. The California coast, one of the most beautiful drives on earth. The SDMB isn’t a priority in my life, it just fills in at other times so I leave my laptop at home, screw email and the like.

Anyway, I’m pretty tired of answering the same questions over and over, so I’ll just provide the news as we make history here.

Here’s the latest.

Still waiting the CA attorney general’s response to the filing. Public comment period is over. Next is filing with the Sec of State and then, collecting the almost 600,000 valid signatures begins.

About 13,000 Californians have registered to volunteer for YesCalifornia, while the YesCalifornia mailing list is now over 110,000 strong. The California National Party and #FreeTheBear are also joining in supporting this. Silicon Valley financier Shervin Pishevar has indicated that he would finance the initiative if the orange buffoon became king, which - well shit, he did. (and Shervin has the assets to do so)
As to the lack of self-governing - I’ll post this for probably the 3rd, maybe 4th time since people just don’t see the argument.

*Self-government exists when the citizens of a political unit, such as California, rule themselves, control their own affairs, and are free from external government control or outside political authority.

Do the people of California enjoy these conditions of self-government?

Not quite. We do choose our own state lawmakers ourselves but Federal laws are the supreme law of the land and take precedence over the laws we enact through our state lawmakers. These Federal laws are enacted largely by 382 representatives and 98 senators who we may not vote for, who exercise supreme political authority from the District of Columbia, and therefore exert great control over California’s affairs from outside our borders. *

Just wait. Field Marshall Jefferson Sessions (Trump’s pick for AG) and his desire to declare the voters of 6 states wrong with respect to the marijuana initiatives they have passed. Self-governing? Let’s just see how self-governing we are when the Field Marshall declares our will is not his will.

Meanwhile, Trump and his merry band of palace servants, guarded by his private palace guard, will continue tweeting his way in to a trade war with Asia and Mexico more jobs will be lost and by the time our vote for independence comes around it will further fuel our goals.

So, If I didn’t answer your question, it’s probably because I’ve answered similar questions multiple times.

Your definition of “self-governing” is not remotely the same as the UN’s.

Here’s Ravenman’s very specific question which I’d like to hear your answer on.

**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?**

Wouldn’t you agree that if the UN removed Hawaii from it’s list of “non-self governing territories” when it made them a state it clearly doesn’t considering states in the US to be “non self-governing”?

[Telemark]

@Morgenstern

Do the people of California enjoy these conditions of self-government?

Not quite.

According to anyone who counts, you do.

[Morgenstern]

@octopus

It won’t take that to whip the modern secessionists. Those pushing to secede in California don’t have the fighting spirit of the Confederacy. And they got smashed.

Yes, those were brutal times, when man had yet learned that the vote is stronger than the bullet. We’ve evolved since then, at least, some of us have.

@octopus

Oh, Morgenstern, you have never been able to answer what prevents counties, cities, towns, villages, and HOA’s within California from going to the UN, opening an embassy and Russia, and applying the same “logic” for their independence.

We’ll bomb their ports and cities, shut off their water, tax them, arrest them, refuse to trade with them, shun them, disassociate with them and take away their membership in Scientology, and we won’t let them back into California. Same sort of shit people have suggested herein. Wait, we rejected all that as ridiculous, so I guess my answer will be…nothing. Nothing prevents free people from doing what they wish. Let them.

[Morgenstern]

@Ibn_Warraq

Your definition of “self-governing” is not remotely the same as the UN’s.

Here’s Ravenman’s very specific question which I’d like to hear your answer on.

Wouldn’t you agree that if the UN removed Hawaii from it’s list of “non-self governing territories” when it made them a state it clearly doesn’t considering states in the US to be “non self-governing”?

Let Hawaii vote on it. Here, ask them.

ETA. I’ve already answered his question re: self governing. I’ve given examples. He’ll just have to look.

[octopus]

@Morgenstern

Yes, those were brutal times, when man had yet learned that the vote is stronger than the bullet. We’ve evolved since then, at least, some of us have.

And you are at the mercy of those who will use violence.

We’ll bomb their ports and cities, shut off their water, tax them, arrest them, refuse to trade with them, shun them, disassociate with them and take away their membership in Scientology, and we won’t let them back into California. Same sort of shit people have suggested herein. Wait, we rejected all that as ridiculous, so I guess my answer will be…nothing. Nothing prevents free people from doing what they wish. Let them.

California won’t do anything.

[Morgenstern]

@Ibn_Warraq

Your definition of “self-governing” is not remotely the same as the UN’s.

…

You’re clearly wrong.

UN definition of Self-governing.

*In the United Nations system, the term ‘non-self-governing territory’ is used to refer to a territory whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self government.
*

Note “FULL” measure of self government. Not partial, not almost, not nearly, but FULL. It hasn’t happened. Further evidence of this will be a successful initiative on the part of the people of California, and the federal governments attempts to disallow/block it. And the term PEOPLE - which I’m pretty sure Californian’s are.

[Morgenstern]

@octopus

And you are at the mercy of those who will use violence.

Yes, we’re fearful Trump will send in the AC-130 Spectre Gunship to slaughter us for standing in line to vote, claiming that our flip-flops were really secret weapon designed by aliens to control our minds and this was necessary to put down the violent insurrection we were undertaking.

@octopus

California won’t do anything.

Sure we will. I already told you we’d waive our flip-flops at you.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Morgenstern

You’re clearly wrong.

UN definition of Self-governing.

*In the United Nations system, the term ‘non-self-governing territory’ is used to refer to a territory whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self government.
*

Note “FULL” measure of self government. Not partial, not almost, not nearly, but FULL. It hasn’t happened. Further evidence of this will be a successful initiative on the part of the people of California, and the federal governments attempts to disallow/block it. And the term PEOPLE - which I’m pretty sure Californian’s are.

Uh-huh.

You obviously missed Ravenman’s question or perhaps didn’t read it correctly. When Hawaii was a “territory” they listed it as a “non-self-governing territory” but after it became a state they removed it from that list.

How does this not clearly indicate they think becoming a state makes them “self-governing”?

Have you spoken to any legal scholars who’s speciality is International Law?

[John_Mace]

@Ravenman

I’m waiting for the CalExit folks to raise the point that the Raider Nation is unfairly excluded from the United Nations. Tyranny!!!

The way they flubbed the playoffs… No UN recognition for YOU!!!

[John_Mace]

@Ibn_Warraq

Uh-huh.

You obviously missed Ravenman’s question or perhaps didn’t read it correctly. When Hawaii was a “territory” they listed it as a “non-self-governing territory” but after it became a state they removed it from that list.

How does this not clearly indicate they think becoming a state makes them “self-governing”?

Have you spoken to any legal scholars who’s speciality is International Law?

Always be suspicious of a quote given with out a link to the source. It often means the poster doesn’t want you to see the full context. Here’s the full quote and source.

Non-Self-Governing Territory Law and Legal Definition

When used in the context of International law, ‘non-self-governing territory’ means a territory that is governed by another country. Such types of territories are rarely allowed representations in the governing country’s legislature. In the United Nations system, the term ‘non-self-governing territory’ is used to refer to a territory whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self government.

Emphasis added. A US states is not a “territory”, that being the operative word in UN Charter Chapter 11. I think Ravenman (or someone else) already posted this, but here is the UN’s list of “Non-Self-Governing Territories”. There are only 17.

[Ravenman]

@Ibn_Warraq

Uh-huh.

You obviously missed Ravenman’s question or perhaps didn’t read it correctly. When Hawaii was a “territory” they listed it as a “non-self-governing territory” but after it became a state they removed it from that list.

How does this not clearly indicate they think becoming a state makes them “self-governing”?

Have you spoken to any legal scholars who’s speciality is International Law?

I would like to add one question: since it is clear that the UN does not consider Hawaii or Alaska to be non-self governing territories, I would like to know what special powers that Hawaii and Alaska have that California does not.

Clearly, if Alaska and Hawaii are not non-self governing territories, and California is alleged to be a non-self governing territory, then there has to be specific powers that Alaskans and Hawaiians have that Californians do not. What are these powers?