That’s a totally different thing. Yes California may be a slightly nutty quixotic campaign but that doesn’t rival “I found a loophole in the Constitution!” nuttiness.
Yes, some of the arguments in that other thread are right there with that kind of nuttiness. Did you miss the part about CA not being a self-governing entity? But please, let’s not rehash that here. Go back read it if you didn’t originally do so.
Wouldn’t it just be easier to get rid of the loon in the White House?
A little looking seems to show the last time was in the early 90’s and yes the argument was more about the North getting ignored in infrastructure spending.
The Wiki article says there have been27 significant proposals since statehood.
You’re right, I shouldn’t have said it’s mostly conservatives. It does look like the five proposals since 2000 were mostly Republican/conservative ideas because California is too Democrat.
It’s significantly more likely than California seceding.
It would help put a number to how many deluded fools live in the country. If you work to destroy the nation I don’t have a problem with steps being implemented in response.
So if war is necessary to preserve the nation then war is necessary. Strategic thinkers will not allow any loss of a state regardless of signatures.
Residents In All 50 States File Petitions To Secede From United States
It ain’t new, or all California.
To restate my point for this thread: I’m not weighing in on the merits of the argument, I’m weighing in on the political impact of the campaign. This campaign is not something that TPTB or any reasonably mainstream political thought will care about.
In the other thread I’m explaining why the campaign makes no sense. Obviously there’s some overlap, but I am making different points.
Well, it doesn’t make sense in every state because a lot of states don’t use ballot initiatives the way CA does, so there’s nothing to gather signatures for. If this started getting real support instead of being something that fringe lunatics do for attention, you’d see a LOT of serious opposition very quickly, and not just from outside of CA.
One major problem with any idea of secession movements is that, once you allow secession, you don’t have a legitimate argument for denying secession yourself. What’s to stop the highly conservative parts of CA from seceding from Calexitfornia once you accept that proposal? No one seems to want to touch that can of worms.
Have you followed the other thread? There is LITERALLY “I found a loophole in the Constitution” nuttiness going on, with the idea that there is a simple legal process for secession. The only process for a state to legally secede from the US is to amend the constitution, but Calexiters talk like they just need to get 51% of California to make one vote and it’s a done deal. And there’s ‘the UN charter about colonial independence applies to CA today, and why do you keep talking about colonies when I claim the UN article about colonies means the US has to allow independence?’. On a lesser scale, Calexitfornians will retain US citizenship, but its citizens will also not have to pay US income taxes. Calexitfornia will automatically be a member of NATO, and also won’t maintain any significant military forces. Calexitfornia will not do anything that would justify US use of force, and also will seize the 45% of California land owned by the Federal government including multiple military bases.
Also the leader of the Calexit movement is a Russian living in Russia who refuses to disclose whether he gets paid by the Kremlin for running Calexit. That might put a damper on the movement if it gets beyond the level of support that the ‘make it legal to kill gays’ ballot initiative did. From His Home in Russia, #Calexit Leader Plots California Secession | KQED
Claim they are American and call Uncle Sugar. We’re in what the US Special Operations community sometimes calls a golden age of special operations. Obama greatly expanded their numbers and has been using them heavily. Trump, in guidance I saw given to Mattis, already called for an assessment of how to further strengthen SOCOM. One of Special Operations core competencies is unconventional warfare like raising, advising and assisting rebel groups.
Putin…who needs Putin.
I believe the current accepted legal theory is that the Congress can allow a state to secede using the same procedure as admitting a state. And I believe an initiative could mandate that the Representatives and Senators must introduce such a bill in their respective Houses.
I’m confused by this post. Are you saying you think Green Berets are going to help California secede?
So we just had an election where tens of millions voted against him. For states with these ballot measures the bar to get on the ballot is pretty low compared to vote totals. There’s not really a picture to get.
“A tiny fringe of the people who voted against me really don’t like me. Ho Hum. Reince what’s next on the schedule?”
No. There is significant capability to help counties that choose to fight to stay part of the US by seceding from the new RoCA. That’s of course if the new Republic follows Morgenstern’s notion that they can justifiably be denied that option.
Every new nation on the planet has set a precedent for further secession. The latest peaceful split I can think of is Czechoslovakia. It split in two, and as far as I know, it hasn’t subsequently split into 20 more. Sounds like a slippery slope. Oh, if you let California go, next cats and dogs will be declaring independence!
As far as I know, secession would require a vast majority of Californians to succeed (among other things). Attempts to further split California would also need a vast majority of votes, assuming CA’s new constitution allowed it. Remember, to leave, California has to convince what it is, 37 other states or something? I assume California would split into individual states, and anyone wanting to leave would have to convince the others. Or, CA just passes a law, “no further secession.”
Ahhh, thanks for the clarification. Yes, I could see a use there.
And they don’t explain what “significant means”. The cite they give just states it without explaining. There’s always talk, but if you read the wikipedia article, it’s only been proposed in the legislature twice in the last 60 years and didn’t pass either time.
From your link (just for laughs):
Strikes me as a silly move and waste of time. Reminds me of those “mighty e-mail petitions” in the 1990s calling on the Taliban to stop mistreating women. Something easy to sign but absolutely useless. I think mass protests and flooding the White House and Congress with individual messages is the way to go.