Thanks.
Perhaps Morganstern will have have an explanation for this, but I doubt it. Honestly the reasoning the Calexit supporters have been using reminds me very much of the Sovereign Citizen types, as others have noted.
But that’s true of every single state in the country, though. California is no different than Iowa, or Mississippi, or Delaware in that regard. So is it your argument that the US itself is unjust or that federalism is, by its nature, tyrannical? Under your logic, why should any state be in the US?
It’s perfectly clear to me that his insistence on the term “FULL measure of self-government” for “the people” could be picked apart such that only an anarchist society, with each person fully sovereign and making their own personal laws and foreign policy, could possibly pass his test.
So any individuals that like living in the US better than the Calexit Republic can just counter-secede, and make their county, town, or individual house a part of the US but not part of California any more. That seems like a really stable way to run a functioning government, where individual houses in a neighborhood can be a foreign country. The Us government already owns around 45% of California’s land, I wonder how much it will be when calexitexit supporters decide to opt out of Calexit and stay in the US?
This has gone from “Pipe dream” to “hoping that a weird anarchist nonfunctional semi-government is both attractive to people and somehow manages to fend off the US”
Yes, California is effectively a non-self-governing territory of the US, and clearly meets the legal definition of a territory.
- Generally, the term refers to a particular or indeterminate geographical area. In a legal context, territory usually denotes a geographical area that has been acquired by a particular country but has not been recognized as a full participant in that country’s affairs.*
Sure, all they have to do is qualify an initiative with the State AG, collect 500,000 + signatures of registered voters, and finance a campaign, and win more votes than those who vote against it. Probably difficult for the owner of a house to do though, unless he has like 500,000+ kids who are all registered to vote.
Not so fast. CA will elect our own representatives and send them to Sacramento. One vote = one vote of the total votes. You can bet the “electoral college” process will be the first thing shit-canned here. (In fact, there is also an initiative under review with the Cal AG right now - as usual CA leads the way) Thereafter each resident of RoCA will have a voice in government, unlike the US where we had 0, zip point shit, nada voice in Trump’s swamp selections or any of the 382 representatives and 98 senators, who we also had no voice in electing, yet they will vote to fill a Supreme Court seat that will make rulings that we will be bound by. At least until we leave.
The two have nothing in common, to say otherwise is indicative of you missing the argument regarding CalExit following all laws, state and federal, to the letter.
You have yet to attempt to address why you think California is not self governing, while the UN considers Alaska and Hawaii self governing since 1959. Why are those states more self-governing than California?
But the people of Amador County will be subject to the whims of voters in Los Angeles County, San Francisco County, and Alameda County. Amador County votes will be meaningless. Those liberal counties will swamp poor, red Amador with many more blue elected representatives who will make laws and install judges that don’t represent the views of Amador County. And all these laws will be binding upon Amador County, and there is nothing they can do about it until they call in the UN and assert their independence from California.
Right?
More importantly, which legal experts share the views the CalExiters? Note that there is never a reference to any legal expert-- just a claim pulled out of thin air, hanging on an interpretation not acknowledged outside the CalExit circle. Well, maybe acknowledge within the Freeman of the Land circles. Or the Sovereign Citizens circle.
By an application of your own logic, no they don’t. They can make up their own rules of secession.
No, the 500,000 process is not what they wish, so they don’t have to do it. They only need to get a majority of votes in whatever geographic area they like, which could range from ‘my country’, where quite a few are actually conservative, down to ‘my house’, populated by one person which gets a 100% vote for Calexitexit. If you don’t let them secede from Calexit with a simple majority in the geographic area they feel is not properly represented, then you’re violating the principle that you’re using to justify Calexit, and violating the UN charter in exactly the same way that you claim the US it. And you can’t just arbitrarily declare that while a country can be split up, a country formed from a former US state absolutely can never split up.
After all they can use the logic here:
… and simply say that since their district has no voice in selecting the other 118 legislators in the state, they are not self-governing. If it’s not a whole district, then they simply point out (like you do with the presidential election) that they didn’t vote for their legislator or the governor, so he doesn’t represent them, yet will make rulings they will be bound by and so they’re justified in leaving to form their own new state.
The problem with your definition of ‘non self-governing’ and it’s application to secession is that it leads to an absurd result.
I’d say below the county level is where it becomes less than practical to have an independent country – probably slightly above the county level but I’m giving some leeway.
The worst part of Calexit would be if it is decided on a 51% or so majority like Brexit. It has too wide ranging implications to be decided on so light a margin. I’d say around 66% would show a true measure of the citizen’s feelings rather than simply who showed up on election day and who they were mad at. Similarly, if counties adjacent to border states also overwhelmingly decided to stay, (and similarly-voting counties adjacent to these) then I would mind those staying with the US. But an exclave is just unworkable.
The main problem, though, is that offering some sort of definition is a red herring. Whatever the definition is (and it really doesn’t matter), the UN has a published list of “Non-Self-Governing Territories”. You can come up with any definition you like, but if you aren’t on the list, you aren’t a “Non-Self-Governing Territory”.
The next problem is that if you were to try to apply for that status, you face the problem that to get that status, you need the approval of the appropriate UN Committee. And not only does the US of A sit on that committee, it has veto authority on that committee (just like it has on the UNSC).
So, CA is not on the current list, so it’s not a NSGT. Period. It won’t get on the list because the US can veto it getting on that list. End of story.
Take a look at California President Results 2016 and you’ll see that there are “blue” counties like Nevada completely cut off from the other blue counties. Is a CalExit enclave equally unworkable? Sorry, Nevada County residents, all your neighboring counties wanted to stay, so you have to stay too?
ETA: I realize secede-vs-not may not split along traditional red-blue lines (it’s probably going to be a bipartisan “no” landslide), but I’m using it as an easy-to-visualize example.
Psttttt. That list not in stone. It’s subject to change when situations change. That should have been pretty obvious. CA has not voted yet so CA has not requested inclusion.
:rolleyes:
You don’t even know the name of the “appropriate UN committee” yet you’re quoting how it works?
Are you speaking for the UN or are you just assuming you know what will happen?
Morgenstern, I was under the impression you didn’t think it was important if the UN considered California a NSGT. Your last post makes it seem like you do think it’s important (“That list not in stone. It’s subject to change … CA has not requested inclusion [yet]”). Would you consider failure to get on the list of NSGTs a roadblock or critical failure in the CalExit movement?
You totally underestimate the Trump effect. He’ll do more to fuel the growing support than anything imaginable. I suspect that after 12 months of Trump lying and deceiving the public even the Republicans will see that they royally fucked up here.
Case in point. 2 months ago CalExit had 1,500 supporters. Today, it has over 110,000 members pledging support for the initiative. 13,000 pledging to volunteer with the chores ahead. And Trump hasn’t screwed up a single thing…yet.
Of course CA will request inclusion. Why not. CA will point out that the US already promised, in writing, to support such inclusion and the right to self-governing.
You can’t even answer the repeated question about why Hawaii and Alaska are judged to have stopped being non-self governing territories in 1959, but you think California will be one soon, so I don’t think you’re in a position to nit-pick other posts in this thread.