Thank-you. I kept meaning to ask one of our legal experts about that.
Yes, you literally are. Any time you reference Chapter XI, you’re talking about how the international community treats colonies.
Don’t know how to explain this any clearer! Waste of time!
You’d be like incorrect. Discouraging future secessionist movements is important.
I missed this before, but do you guys understand ANYTHING about how this country (or indeed any functioning country) actually works? Congress already explicitly allowed the armed forces to repress secession, rebellion, and the like with the Insurrection act of 1807, which was modified to be a bit broader in the last decade. Under that ALREADY EXISTING law, the president can use the armed forces to suppress any insurrection or conspiracy if the situation results either in people’s rights being violated or interferes with federal law being carried out. Since the whole purpose of Calexit is to stop having to comply with Federal law, and Calexiters keep talking about not needing to follow US laws, that would get invoked pretty quickly.
It would really help your movement not look like a bunch of loons if they had a basic understanding of how the US and its laws work now instead of picking some phrase and deciding that it means you win.
For quick reference: Insurrection Act of 1807 - Wikipedia
As I mentioned up in post #59 the California legislature can spend it fast than you can give it to them.
Want proof?
The voters gave Governor Moonbeam 10 BILLION in new tax revenue. The legislature promptly spent 12 BILLION.
Give the Gov and the legislature an extra 16 billion dollars and they will bankrupt the new nation in about 18 months.
I saw this poll and had to share it here because this thread was so much fun:
I suspect most of the people saying this are saying this because they know it would never actually happen.
I suspect you’re right.
It’s funny what happens sometimes, when that happens.
Those same people said Trump would never get elected too.
in other news, signature collection has begun. We have 6 months to collect all the necessary signatures. That should be enough time for Trump to partially destroy the American dream. 110,000 + people have signed supporting the movement so far. 13,000 have agreed to work for it, collecting signatures, etc.
Cascadia Independence has pledged support. That would be most of the entire west coast joining in.
Interesting, RoCA will be born a member of NATO, that is, if the Orange baboon hasn’t destroyed NATO on his quest of destroying America. Yes, child nations of NATO members are automatically members. I suppose this would make the invasion and war between the US and RoCA some imagine less likely.
Given 3 years are projected to meet this goal, and three years from now Trump will have totally screwed over the American people by then, things look quite doable. Especially with Cascadia thinking about joining in.
And, According to international precedents, when a nation splits both successor nations inherit the parent nation’s treaties and agreements unless and until one of the successor nations opts out. That would mean California already be a member of NAFTA, the WTO, and other free-trade treaties. That means no significant barriers to trade with the remaining United States would be enacted and trade would be largely unaffected. Trade will go on, if old hamster fists hasn’t totally screwed that over too.
One of the questions asked of the organization was…Can California return to the US if it secedes? The answer was “Does Canada want to be part of the US, or any other country for that matter? Why would California?”
It’s moving forward. Signature collection, on forms already being distributed. Moving on to a better future. Trump will do more for this movement than Clinton could ever have.
Bullshit. When Scotland was voting on independence I don’t remember a single person mentioning this “precedent”. In fact, it was point blank said they wouldn’t retain EU membership. It would be up to signatories and whatever treaty dispute resolution is in place to decide whether a new country gets in.
What you “don’t remember” and reality might be 2 different things.
In your professional judgment, would California be a “newly independent state” or a “separation of a part of a state?”
For your information, a “newly independent state” would be of the character of states referenced under Chapter XI of the UN Charter.
It might be but I’m pretty sure that isn’t the case. And there is no doubt about the reality wrt Scotland not being guaranteed EU membership. Where did you learn of this “precedent”.
As soon as Morgenstern answers my question, I can fill you in on the issue WRT Scotland.
I’m just anxiously awaiting his answer, first.
NATO only applies to a foreign power invading a NATO member, it doesn’t apply to a NATO member suppressing revolt in its own territory.
Cite, please. I won’t hold my breath though.
It’s a ridiculous assertion on it’s face because such a rule would be forcing countries into an agreement they never made. If Mexico makes a trade agreement with the U.S. the terms they hammer out will be based on the economies of the whole nation. They would not give the same concessions to gain access to the California market that they would to gain access to the entire U.S. market. Similarly, a military treaty would be negotiated based on military power and security concerns of the whole country. Why would Belgium want to be, according to Morgenstern forced to be, in a defense treaty with California and it’s non-existent military power?
I haven’t taken part of this discussion so far, but I’ll chime in that I think the idea of California seceding would be harmful to both California and the country as a whole. The same goes for any other state (even a state with leaders I have strong ideological differences with).
Cite please. Note it uses the words “member countries.” Which CA would be.
Here, go argue with their lawyer.
Problem: Trump is going to ruin the country.
Proposed Solution: Let’s ruin it before he gets a chance to do it himself!