I’ve already shown how this is possible. And no, 110,000 (and growing daily) of us are not about to give it up.
PS, we’re not asking the UN to designate CA a colony of the US. Just saying.
Was that lifted from a Trump tweet? It reads like one.
The UN doesn’t matter. The only votes that matter on the issue of Californian independence are Americans. The timeline you gave last week makes that very clear:
A) Nov 2018 - CA votes whether to vote on independence or not
B) Mar 2019 - CA votes on independence (assuming the previous vote succeeded)
C) (your timeline gets a little fuzzy here) - Congress and the rest of the states vote on whether to allow California to leave (again, assuming the previous vote succeeded). If 38 states (and 2/3 of Congress or convention delegates) give CA permission, through a Constitutional amendment, they can leave.
D) (optional) Then they’d be free to request admission to the UN, but whether accepted or rejected, they’d still be an independent country.
My question is the same as Shodan’s (from post #763): what are you going to do to win the approval of 38 states?
Whaaaaa!!! Trump won!!
Here’s a little factoid for you. SCOTUS is charged with defining and interpreting the US Constitution. They are the ultimate authority on it. Period. Their interpretations of the provisions of said document are legally binding on the US. If SCOTUS says it’s legal, legal if…, legal when…, or illegal, that’s it. End of story. End of appeal. It’s law.
Texas v. White is a SCOTUS case.
So, when you’ve got SCOTUS defining a Constitutional issue, their ruling becomes the law of the land. SCOTUS can reverse a previous decision, or further define it, or affirm it, but they are and they will remain, the ultimate authority on that issue. Period.
All SCOTUS did in Texas v White was acknowledge that it could be amended to allow a state to leave. You didn’t need SCOTUS to tell you that though. We already knew that the Constitution can be amended with ‘consent of the States’.
So because, per SCOTUS, an amendment would be required, I ask again: what is your plan for when the United States refuse to amend the Constitution to allow CalExit?
I guess some folks don’t know the difference between “could” and “does”.
Amending the Constitution is one way. It’s not the only way. Gaining approval of the states is another way. Revolution is the third (legal per Texas v. White - go figure) way. However, no revolution is planned or desired. Option one and option two will be pursued when the time comes.
You know. 99% of what is coming up has been covered already. Pardon me, but I’m going to start ignoring asked and answered comments/questions. It’s not meant to offend anyone, it’s just time consuming and repetitive to go over and over the same points.
You would be willing to defend your home state from an unwelcome military incursion. And that’s understandable. You’re also OK with the choice of some other state’s decision to walk away from the U.S.A… If they’re not shooting at me, I’m not shooting at them. Buh bye. Have a nice day.
I’m assuming that California, or some state, has gone thru the process of becoming agitated over some issue, and has already voted to leave the Union. It’s a done deal. They’ve rejected U.S. federal control over their now independent state.
Posse Comitatus doesn’t allow the use of the U.S. military against U.S. citizens, unless the U.S. Congress allows it. And the Union still considers the secessionist state to be part of the U.S.A… I suppose that Union states could call out their National Guard to perform any “bullets are flying, people are dying” requirement, if they felt that strongly about the loss of California almonds?
It’s my personal opinion that no one would want to be the first to shoot. And without that first exchange of fire, there would be no need to dispatch U.S. military forces to force California’s return to the Union.
“Option one” and “option two” are just two ways of saying the same thing. “consent of the States” is just a term of art for ‘pass a Constitutional amendment’. I thought you understood that last week when your timeline spelled out getting approval of 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the States, or 2/3 of a Constitutional convention’s delegates and 3/4 of the States.
You’re confusing 2 issues.
- Amending the constitution.
- Consent of the states.
2 different things.
No. You’re confused on this point. Those are the SAME thing. You need “consent” of 38 states because what you’d actually be doing is passing a Constitutional amendment to allow California to secede, and the threshold that the Constitution lays our for amendments being adopted is 3/4 of the states.
The language in Texas v. White describing how a state might leave the union is dicta. That is, it has no precedential impact. The Court was not asked to decide if a state could secede, only whether Texas’ war bonds were valid - which required it to determine if Texas’ secession was effective based on the manner it chose. All Texas v. White tells us about the law is that a state may not unilaterally secede.
[QUOTE=Chase, C.J.]
It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?
[/QUOTE]
In any event, there is no constitutional mechanism for “gaining approval of the states” other than a constitutional amendment. We don’t have any other form of action in which the states can bind the federal government.
But you have decidedly not answered my question, despite, I feel, it being asked in a fair manned.
What will you do when the Constitution is not amended? Assuming the “approval of the States” is somehow different, what will you do when that is not forthcoming?
Last week you said this:
Notice how many times you used the word “Amendment” in there? I’d highlight them for you, but I don’t want to get dinged by a mod for changing a quote.
Last week those were the “2 paths to independence” for CA, according to you. Are you now saying that you’ve discovered another one in Texas v White called “Consent of the States”? If so, how does this new path work? Does it still require 2/3 of the House of Representatives and Senate or 2/3 of the delegates at a Convention of the States followed by approval of 38 states? Or does this new “Consent of the states” have some new threshold? Maybe only 26 states? or 50? or 2? I’m sure it’s all explained right there in Texas v White, right?
Actually, there are two methods and Morgenstern laid them out in post #652:
Article 5 does lay out these two paths, either via amendment or constitutional convention whereby a new constitution could be adopted. I think the former is more likely than the latter, though even then it would be generous to say the chances were remote.
I’d call both methods “via amendment”. Here’s the entirety of Article V:
I’ve always understood that to mean that passing a new Constitutional amendment is a two-step process. The second step is always ratification by 3/4 of the States, but the first step has two options:
-
Congress (by a 2/3 super-majority in both houses)
-
a “convention for proposing amendments”, called for by 2/3 of the state legislatures.
This second route of step 1 has never been utilized before, although as Morgenstern noted, some people are working on it. I don’t think it’s accurate to call it a “constitutional convention whereby a new constitution could be adopted”. First, the convention route is called, in the constitution itself, “a convention for proposing amendments”, and second, regardless of any amendments proposed by the convention, they don’t take effect unless ratified by 3/4 of the states, same as if Congress had proposed them.
It is a 2 step process, but to get to the final step there are two separate paths. I think it’s fair to say there are two options to get to the end result. And while it hasn’t happened, it could be argued that the original 1787 convention was such an event.
People proposing such a convention is not novel.
Once the convention is called - all bets are off, we could wind up like Canada!
Do we agree that any amendments proposed by a convention would still need ratification by 3/4 of the states? Assuming we do, I don’t see how a convention is any more dangerous than every time Congress gets called into session. They have the same power (at least, as regards to modifying the Constitution).
The only caveat that concerns me is it’s not clear how states would select their delegates to a convention. I’m assuming it would be a democratic-ish process, but there’s nothing really defined in Article V on that area.
ETA: this is becoming a hijack. I apologize Morgenstern, back to our regularly-scheduled shenanigans. If I want to discuss the nuances of Constitutional amendments further, separate from their implications for Californian independence, I’ll start a new thread.
The fact that you didn’t listen to experts and pundits like 538.com, Alan Abramowitz, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, and a host of less well known names, polls like the ABC/Washington post and Investors Business Daily, or conservatives on this board cheering for a Trump victory mixed with Democrats lambasting anyone thinking of voting third party doesn’t mean they didn’t exist. Lots of people and polls showed that there were plenty of ways for Trump to win (and even more for Hillary to win but not by a landslide), but a certain set of people arbitrarily decided that they were wrong and tuned them out.
I think the same people who were ignoring objective reality and ‘promising’ you that Trump couldn’t win are the ones ‘promising’ you that the US would just sit back and let CA secede without any trouble out of shame over potentially not following a written promise to the UN that even the UN doesn’t think the US made. You should be questioning the wisdom of the people making nonsense promises, but instead you’ve decided that since the only experts you listened to about the election were wrong, any other experts you hear must be wrong about anything else, and that wishful thinking wins over history and realpolitik.
If you don’t believe me, read what five minutes in google turned up:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/clinton-campaign-bad-poll-abc-washington-post-230591
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/301834-poll-trump-up-1-on-clinton-nationally