The US Congress, obviously.
Hawaii might and given how they became a part of the US they should be allowed to be an independent kingdom.
I have a very jaundiced view of the political process in general and the sort of people that run for high office in particular. It comes from being a child of political activists I think - somehow that experience has turned me into a slightly sour pragmatist ;). I have never been enthused about any political candidate for president and never expect to be in my lifetime. So really it bothers me very, very little - they are all compromise candidates for me. Also I prefer to watch my sporting events at an earlier hour :p.
That is not to rain on any other West Coaster’s disappointment though. I totally get and sympathize with the frustration of others who feel they never really get a full say in the process. It just doesn’t particularly bother special little snowflake me.
Because they aren’t ever getting that permission. They could only leave via superior force.
And when conservative California wants to split from liberal California what happens then? The whole idea of secession is a crackpot idea only supported by fools. And a war to rid the nation of fools might not be terrible.
Countries have divided peacefully before. I’ll grant that it’s not the norm, but given how much time the US spends running around the world defending democracy and self-determination we’d be pretty hypocritical if we didn’t at least consider the idea at home.
Probably depends which CA conservatives you’re talking about. You’ve got your wealthy conservatives, and you’ve got your cowboys up and down the eastern half. I doubt the eastern half has the numbers, and your wealthy conservatives are spread out along the coast, surrounded by much less wealthy people.
What, Coronado Island secedes?
Wealthy conservative California doesn’t really have much of a geographical area to take with them, and someone has to mow their lawns, watch their kids and clean their pools.
We’re generally NOT supportive of efforts to split up in countries we are aligned with. I would assume that we are aligned with ourselves. 
Countries we are aligned with, by and large, are democracies. And democracies usually don’t break up.
Sez who? You dont think the GOP wouldnt love to see CA gone?
These days, that’s become debatable 
California doesn’t have a congress. It has the California State Legislature.
There’s secession, and there’s secession. Anybody can plant a flag on a piece of land and claim they’re now an independent nation. The tricky part is getting the rest of the world to agree with you.
Currently, there’s dozens of breakaway states around the world – Abkhazia, Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, South Ossetia, Transnistria, etc. – who have successfully achieved de facto autonomy even though they’re not recognized as independent nations. But these places are so small and remote that few people even know they exist, let alone care. Then you’ve got Taiwan, which for unique diplomatic reasons is still “officially” treated as part of China, but in all other matters, for all intents and purposes may as well be independent.
“Brexit” was possible only because the EU charter does allow member states to secede if they really want to. (And has happened at least once, with Norway.) No such proviso exists within the U.S. Constitution – once you’re in, you’re in, and if it turns out you don’t like it, too bad so sad, sucks to be you. So forget about any peaceful separation, ain’t gonna happen.
And if military force were involved – dream on, the rest of America would crush us. It’s what America does best, man.
How California Can Legally Secede from the Union
http://www.yescalifornia.org/how_california_can_legally_secede_from_the_union
I would imagine the Ex-Cal U.S.’ main objection would be losing access to the Pacific coast for shipping/trade & defense purposes.
Oh, sure, in some fantasy world, if both houses of Congress said to California, “Go in peace with our blessing,” it wouldn’t be any problem it all.
But there’s less chance of that happening than the IUPAC agreeing to name Element 118 after Lemmy of Motörhead.
Simple 51% vote, no history of being an independent nation (and no Texas, ten years as an independent country isn’t ‘a history’), no large cultural divide (like speaking a different language), no approval by US congress. If there’s Congressional approval then there’s zero chance of war to stop secession, so the question in the OP doesn’t make any sense.
Quebec has a vastly different cultural background (founded by France rather than the UK), they speak a different language and use a different legal system. They were part of France until 1763, then under UK control but not merged with Northern Canada until 1840, and still retained a distinct cultural and legal identity. Quebec secession is not simply ‘51% of voters don’t like this election or this legal decision’.
Because the 49% of the states citizens who don’t vote for it are US citizens who’s rights as citizens are about to go away and who’s homes are about to be taken by a foreign country. That’s a pretty big reason right off the bat. The consider that such secession means ‘well, if 51% of the people in this area want to go they can just go, and being a US citizen means your neighbors can decide to remove your protection as a citizen if 51% of them agree’ and it’s very unlikely that the US would remain a coherent country for very long after.
What do you mean, “taken by a foreign country”? They will still own their land and pay taxes, just with a different name on the check.
Keep in mind that most of the laws in this country are state-specific, vis-a-vis gun control, education, environmental regulations, local tax codes, law enforcement, transportation management, legality of marijuana, etc. Changing sovereignty from one nation to another will not change any of that.
For historical reference -
For historical reference -
(post shortened)
For historical reference -
Since the conversation was about a (possible) referendum on the 2018 California ballot, it wasn’t obvious. Much better now though.
for historical reference -
(underline added)
What’s the difference between “congress” and “Congress”? :rolleyes:
*congress
noun [ C ] us /ˈkɑŋ·ɡrəs/
a formal meeting of representatives from countries or organizations at which ideas are discussed and information is exchanged:
-the fourth congress of the European Association for Lexicography*
vs
*Congress
noun [ U ] us /ˈkɑŋ·ɡrəs/
politics & government the elected group of people in the US who are responsible for making the law, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives:
-Congress has rejected the president’s plan.*
You answered your own question, dh.