And by the way, there’s a perfectly good reason why John Mace didn’t provide the name of the committee – it is too fucking long. “The Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples” is just too damn much typing (even I coped and pasted it), and they are the group the creates the list of non-self governing territories.
And again, you think California is a colony? Fer reals?
We’re talking about CalExit and the position CalExit is taking.
Both Hawaii and Alaska have organizations with respect to independence. Alaska even goes so far as to claim fraud was involved.
From the AIP site.
As for Hawaii. This is actually sort of funny…
HONOLULU—China has suggested arming Hawaii’s independence activists in retaliation for U.S. arms sales to Taiwan and recently threatened to challenge American sovereignty by making legal claims to the Pacific islands as its territory.
(suggestion rejected - but it does show that the world is watching.
and
Native Hawaiians announced that they had made history: they had written a constitution for a Hawaiian nation…
With a vote of 88 in favor and 30 opposed, the delegates approved a constitution and declaration of sovereignty—the first steps toward creating a new Native Hawaiian nation. But there’s a sharp divide between two camps: activists who want to start what would be a federally recognized, semi-autonomous government in the same vein as other Native American groups, and a growing contingent who instead want Hawaii to become a completely independent nation from the U.S.
Hope this helps your self-governing questions.
This goes back to something else you haven’t addressed.
It seems that much of the basis for CA secession is that California doesn’t get enough back in return for all the tax money it sends to the feds. Let’s assume that, for purely venal reasons, the rest of the US wants to keep CA around just as a cash cow. How do you set about convincing us to let you go off and then we don’t get the money anymore? Why wouldn’t the federal government veto putting California on the list?
You have to convince 38 states to let you go, even though it isn’t in their interests to do so. You have to convince the federal government not to veto putting you on the list, even though it isn’t in their interest to do so.
How are you going to do that?
Regards,
Shodan
LOL, no.
The application goes to the “General Assembly,” via the Secretary-General. 2 words, 15 letters, isn’t too long. 
The Secretary-General shall, for information, send a copy of the application to the General Assembly, or to the Members of the United Nations if the Assembly is not in session.
Of course they will. Who pays, disproportionately, for all the entitlements the US enjoys? Problem is that the US already promised, in writing, to support the same.
Probably one state at a time. I strongly suspect Trump will do more to turn even the reddest states, even those with the most FEMA trailers, into self-governing activists. (No problem helping people in need, but it’s really up to the state to do that, not the other states IE. California)
No, because none of that has anything to do with the question. Let me make this as clear as I possibly can (notwithstanding that it was perfectly clear the last several times the question was asked):
Why do you disagree with the UN?
Wait wait wait – this is crazy. You chided John Mace for not typing out the name of a committee. Here is what you wrote:
I provided the name of the committee, which is very long – and then you respond that the General Assembly is the committee?
How are the people of California going to manage their affairs as an independent country if we can’t even maintain a conversation on a single topic over the duration of two different posts?
Really? Self-governing? When those who couldn’t read and write English and were denied the right to vote on statehood? Does that seem fair?
If those states pass an initiative for independence, we’ll talk. Until now, what they do or don’t do is not relevant to CalExit’s issues.
I was simply pointing out that you were wrong as was John.
Let me help you again. Here’s the process.
*Any State which desires to become a Member of the United Nations shall submit an application to the Secretary-General. Such application shall contain a declaration, made in a formal instrument, that the State in question accepts the obligations contained in the Charter.
Notification of applications
Rule 135
[see introduction, para. 4]
The Secretary-General shall, for information, send a copy of the application to the General Assembly, or to the Members of the United Nations if the Assembly is not in session.
Consideration of applications and decision thereon
Rule 136
If the Security Council recommends the applicant State for membership, the General Assembly shall consider whether the applicant is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter and shall decide, by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting, upon its application for membership.
Rule 137
[see introduction, para. 4]
If the Security Council does not recommend the applicant State for membership or postpones the consideration of the application, the General Assembly may, after full consideration of the special report of the Security Council, send the application back to the Council, together with a full record of the discussion in the Assembly, for further consideration and recommendation or report.
Notification of decision and effective date of membership
Rule 138
[see introduction, para. 4]
The Secretary-General shall inform the applicant State of the decision of the General Assembly. If the application is approved, membership shall become effective on the date on which the General Assembly takes its decision on the application.
As you can see, in Rule 136 John’s point that the “committee” [his word] had to vote unanimously is clearly wrong.
The UN says Alaska and Hawaii stopped being non-self governing territories in 1959. Whatever you think about the voting process, it’s clear the UN doesn’t have those concerns.
Of course their status is relevant. You’re appealing to the UN to add California to the list of non-self governing territories, not the (non-existent) list of “non-self governing territories that have held a vote on separating from the country they belong to.”
The logic is simple and irrefutable: if Hawaii and Alaska do not belong on the list, then no state belongs on the list.
You aren’t even addressing his point. He’s talking about whether something is declared a non-self governing territory. You’re posting about how an independent state may seek to join the UN.
Seriously – is there an attention span issue here?
Morgenstern, you also neglected to answer my question: what’s Calexit Plan B, for when, not if, the rest of the US rejects this nonsense and declines to allow your peaceful secession?
Also, the Alaska Independence Party is probably not your best role model. They’re a laughably small and irrelevant minority in Alaska.
And you’re sure they won’t in the future?
Not relevant to CalExit. They are free to follow suit.
One difference is that CA may have voted to divorce itself from the US. If that happens, there is a very large difference.
One that votes to be independent? The will of the people to self-govern, as demonstrated by a successful vote, changes nothing and is indistinguishable between the Hawaiian/Alaskan issue? You really don’t see any difference?
I’m still waiting for a cite to a legal scholar that any of this CalExit stuff has any merit. I wonder why none has been offered? Any anonymous poster on a MB can put forth a crackpot legal idea, but unless there is some solid legal backing, then the idea doesn’t rise above the level of “crackpot”.
The “anti’” side does not suffer from that problem. Here’s one:
Emphasis added. So, we have two choices:
Gee, I can’t decide which one has more credibility…
As long as the US has veto power, yes.
He must have not seen Texas v. White. Either that, or it was edited incorrectly.
In Texas v. White, the United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional, while commenting that revolution or consent of the States could lead to a successful secession.
emph added. I’ll take the SCOTUS opinion thank you.
No, the US has never promised to let any state secede. And even the UN doesn’t think California should be on the list you mention.
But again, how are you going to force the federal government to let you secede?
That doesn’t answer the question. How are you going to convince one state at a time to act against its own interests, as opposed to convincing them to act against their own best interests in bunches?
Also doesn’t answer the question. ‘Trump is a crappy President, therefore we should let CA stop sending us money’? That doesn’t make sense.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes. I’ll wager every cent I have that the UN will not designate California a colony of the United States. Will you wager anything?
Countries may be formed by means other than the UN designating them to be colonies. Most new countries were not colonies, they were parts of other countries that wanted to be independent. However, that process has LITERALLY NOTHING TO DO with the part of the UN Charter you keep referencing.
For example, South Sudan wanted to separate from the rest of Sudan. At no point were they designated a colony under Chapter XI. At no point was Sudan “forced” to let them go because of Chapter XI. There was simply (a civil war) and then a political settlement. Sudan was not compelled by Chapter XI to make South Sudan independent.
This is the hazard of a little knowledge: you’re going on and on about this sooper-dooper UN provision that will force the US to bend to California’s will, but it has literally nothing to do with how non-colonies become independent countries. But you just can’t give it up! Sad!
Except the states have not given consent, so that’s a meaningless phrase until and unless they actually do. We could re-institute slavery “with the consent of the states”. All that means is that constitution can be changes “with the consent of the states”. But the constitution, as it exists today, does not provide a path to secession. Revolution is, by definition, an extra-constitutional action.
So yes, the constitution “could” provide for session. At present, though, it doesn’t.
Note the word “could”, not “does”.
That’s an assumption.
All the political experts, all the pundits, all the polls, just about everyone with an opinion promised there was no way Trump would win, in fact, Hillary would win by a landslide while Trump went down in flames.
Were they correct?