One of the examples they give for post 2000 is a pair of frigging op-ed pieces. Seriously?
I don’t believe it, and am not aware of any authority that does. Is there any sort of cite supporting your belief that congress can allow a state to secede using the same procedure as admitting a state, when the constitution explicitly gives congress the power to admit a state but not the power to expel one?
Thank you, Sam.
I was looking for an avenue to create a change.
Make it so!
Me neither. States cannot secede, period. The Civil War settled that question once and for all, and there is nothing out there indicating otherwise.
So majority rule, except in cases of “civil rights”…
Anyone wanting to send a message to Trump can do so here. I would advise keeping it civil, especially in light of the increasingly police-state nature of this administration.
What does that mean?
That’s clearly not true. Texas v. White provides the avenue.
California can easily stand on it’s own feet. In fact, when we unload the freeloading states from reaching our taxpayers, we’ll stand a few feet taller.
You’ll have to provide more details. And even if it did turn out to be true technically, which I still doubt, it would take a helluva lot more than Trump presidency to allow a state to leave.
There’s already twenty pages with of “details” in the other thread.
Oh, one of those threads, eh? :rolleyes:
I will leave this thread here, for now, on the grounds that “gathering signatures” is part of the election process in states (such as California) that permit referendum initiatives.
However, if it wanders over into the realm of “should they do it?” it is going to Great Debates.
[ /Moderating ]
The only 'avenue’s in Texas v White are constitutional amendment and war. Constitutional amendment requires 3/4 of the states, and war requires winning a war against the US. Plus the only mention in Texas v White is dicta and not part of the actual judgement. It’s very Freeman Of The Land to take a case that says 'you can’t secede without winning a war or passing a constitutional amendment and decide that it provides an avenue for peaceful secession that doesn’t need 3/4 of the states.
So Calexit is going to require people to give up US citizenship now?
I think that Woodrow Wilson’s call for self determination of peoples supercedes Lincoln’s policy that the union is inviolate. No one is going to war to stop a state or group of states from seceding absent an overwhelming moral interest. So unless California is making slavery legal or something, if they vote to go, they go. And if other states follow, they go too.
As for what message this sends to Trump, none at all unless California actually goes through with secession. At which point Trump chortles heartily, realizing that not only is his reelection guaranteed, but Congress becomes pretty deep red without California’s representatives, and the GOP majority in the Senate increases by 2.
As was explained in the other thread, the note in Texas v White is [url=]dicta. IWO, not binding. It does not “provide a path” in the sense of a legal procedure.
I’m surprised anyone is still peddling that.
I don’t think it does, and neither do the courts. I certainly hope the US is willing to go to war to prevent what’s either a foreign country or a revolutionary movement from claiming sovereignity over American citizens in their own home, and I’m pretty sure the US would do that.
Plus, none of you advocating this simple ‘take a vote, then go’ model of secession answer what happens when smaller units than the state want to secede. There’s a significant conservative minority in CA, especially in the food producing regions (the liberal population is concentrated in the big cities). What happens in your hypothetical when CA’s agricultural land decides to secede and strike on it’s own, or even rejoin the US? Either you treat the state as an inviolate union and break the principle you just claimed was important, or they get to go too.
A country can’t function if it allows a concept of ‘51% secession’ to work.
California can’t secede without 3/4 of the states allowing it or winning a war against the US.
The “overwhelming moral interest” is to prevent the USA for disintegrating and turning into South America.
Heh by electing a standard banana-republic-type dictator. Yeah, good luck with that.
Eh. Trump is temporary (and he’s not a dictator). Secession generally permanent.
How about the moral interest of I am an American citizen and I expect my government to defend my interests.