Using a vague dictionary definition of treason has little to do with what it means in the USA. Here is an article that goes over what it really means in the context of rebellion against the united states. cite
I’ll say the same thing to the Californians that I say to the Texans that float this bullshit: unless you can negotiate your secession to the point where both sides are amicable to the situation, I’ll join up on the side of union over this idea.
I’ve said it to the face of Texans I respect when I saw the placard displayed in their truck, and I see no reason to hold back here. It’s a stupid idea for a variety of reasons, and you’re unlikely to agree to the terms that result, so it’ll most likely to result in shooting. It’s better to bide your time, and live to see another day politically.
I wonder what shot the democrats have of the house of representatives or the presidency without California.
I’m going to say somewhere between “diddly” and “squat”.
That’s just one reason this is a terribly stupid idea.
The latest Texas “secession” kerfluffle happened when Kay Bailey Hutchison wanted to leave the Senate & considered running for Governor. (I do miss her–she was the last sane Republican. I never voted for her but she never embarrassed us.) Governor Goodhair floated secession to win over the wingnuts. Later, he decided he’d rather be President of the USA & dropped the matter. Now he’s hoping for a role in the Trump Regime.
But most Texans know that secession is bullshit. I’m wondering about the California Secesh. I can understand their contempt for the flyover states–as they ignore the Blue spots in all of them. Texas has those Blue cities–not just Groovy Austin. But California doesn’t care.
But–how about Yankeeland? And Illinois–mostly rural but Blue because of Chicago. Those Blue states–including The Greatest City In The World–will hardly appreciate losing California’s Electoral votes. It will make regaining the Presidency much harder. So why should they let California leave?
Well you’ll definitely be following the Brexit model, right down to the demonization of outsiders.
Not to mention that “making a statement” is basically the lowest, least effort form of action. It’s the bare minimum one can do and try to claim they “did something.”
Plus, those “statements” are rarely perceived the way you wish them to be.
I dug up what I said when Texas was talking secession about five years back:
And in response to a comment that not many people would actually want to leave the Union:
One difference now is that it’s liberals rather than conservatives discussing secession. But my attitude doesn’t change just because the shoe’s on the other foot.
But the other thing is that while the tyranny of Obama was largely something in wingnuts’ heads (if he’s gonna get around to grabbing all their guns, he’d better hurry!), liberals’ fears of what life will be like under what will effectively be Trump/Ryan joint rule are based on what their own words and actions.
While the chances of its actually happening are somewhere between zero and, well, zero, the logic of a compact of states (perhaps including the three West Coast states and most of the Northeast) seceding to preserve and improve on the Union as it is, while restricting the Trump/Ryan damage to the states that stay, seems kinda sensible, actually.
For instance, if DC and Maryland were part of the compact, we could copy the Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare records on the way out, and keep those programs intact in the states in the compact. Then we could make a new Constitution by altering the old one somewhat, e.g. adding an ERA that gave equal rights not just to women, but LGBT persons as well, and dispensing with the Second Amendment. Once we were up and running, other states would be welcome to jump off the sinking ship of Trumpland and join us.
Sure, the U.S. military could do…what, exactly? The main effect of secession on the existing U.S. government would be the lack of tax payments from the Compact states to the Federal government. I suppose the Army could send jackbooted thugs to every door in the Compact states to collect taxes. Oh, the irony!
Seceding because one lost an election is anathema to everything American Democracy is supposed to stand for.
Seceding for other reasons may not be morally wrong (depends on grievance and lack of other recourse to solve it), but because one lost the election? I call BS.
Waterboard the leaders of #CalExit and drone strike their families? Isn’t that pretty much what Trump said he’d do to terrorists?
See 1861-1865
And as for the nonsensical claim that California provides $16B more in taxes than it receives, do you think that money just grows up from the dirt? That money is paid by many companies and individuals that will happily vacate to other non-insane states in the US. And the ones that stay? Well how much tax revenue will they be providing when they can no longer sell to the rest of the country? Or they lose their jobs because their company headquartered in another state closes up its offices?
Furthermore, the whole argument about the UN not allowing the US to invade? Please grow up.
That’s ridiculous. You are talking about less than 0.01% of loons in any given state that support secession. Wouldn’t even need the Army. But yes, if needed to eliminate the loonery, the Army would make it a bit more quick.
Yeah, I didn’t appreciate Hutchison when she was active. Sadly, Abbott has made me appreciate Perry a little more. Either way, I hope his inability to remember more than two items on a list prevents him from having further influence. He isn’t the only reason I’ve seen idiots get on the “secede!” wagon, but he’s the highest official to band about such irresponsible talk. He should run a QT, and nothing bigger.
Most Texans do know it is bullshit. Sadly, there’s a non-zero number that don’t seem to understand how complex of a problem it is. However, even those seem to have a moment of clarity when it’s made clear that the person standing in front of them really will shoot them over this fantasy if they try to make it reality without negotiating away these difficult problems.
I agree that I don’t know Californians well enough to know what percentage of them know that talk of secession is bullshit. I honestly was surprised by the number of otherwise intelligent* folks in Texas that bandied about this idea until I explained that unless they could work out the details of their shared debt/military/infrastructure**/etc., it’s going to become a shooting war, and most of the folks at Fort Hood probably weren’t born in Texas. Other than NASA properties, it seems that California is more interlocked with the U.S. than Texas is. Not to mention, you’re adding negotiating an international trade agreement while a noodlehead is in office to the mix of problems the idea presents.
Indeed, I hadn’t even considered the pure political problems that their departure would represent.
*These people could troubleshoot complex problems with computers that I sometimes couldn’t track down myself. They at least understood cause and effect on some level.
**Hey Cali, Texas has it’s own independent electrical grid, and it’s still an idea that’s on the stupid level of practicality. Enron? Heck, look at Ukraine/Russia and their access to gas. I’m not saying it’s right at all, but it could end up that way.
Oh, please don’t fall into the trap of believing that those of us in the center of the country are all part of the Trumpdom of Deploria.
I’ve been having fantasies lately of the metro Chicago area seceding from Illinois. (Illinois would, I’m sorry to say, likely be a red state if not for the Chicago urban area.) Then the new state of Chicagoland would be in position to secede, too – or perhaps become part of California?
Illinois, I’ll point out, is also a donor state. And most of the reddest states are welfare states (I think that’s the term used for states that collect more federal money than they pay in). I’d like to see some of those states pay their fair share for a change.
thank you ruadh
so basically what I’m seeing is that the citizenship for children born after is a principle inshrined in policy but not in the constitution. Funny thing about principles and policies when the future of your country is being threatened, they become quite malleable.
slight hijack
yanno, thinking about that, IF Chicago were to some how actually successfully secede from the Union, depending on the amount of the surrounding area they could take with them for agricultural purposes, I think the Chicago Emperium would stand a better chance than the PRoC to be totally honest.
Need to have a Democratic Diaspora, away from the cities, and take over cities such as St. Cloud MN, Franklin PA, Springfield OH, Metropolis IL, and Minocqua WI. That would serve the country far better than silly secession ideas.
You think I’m going to let the republicans win the presidency permanently after a CalExit?
After all the grief they put me through ???
I WANT TO STAY !!!
That’s just like the UK Labour argument that Scotland shouldn’t become independent because Labour would never win Westminster without it. Not Scotland’s problem.
It’s enshrined in legislation, and I rather doubt Californian secession would be enough to convince Congress to repeal that legislation.