Calexit?

Message boards : Politics : Calexit?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 1
United States
Message 1895029 - Posted: 13 Oct 2017, 14:04:04 UTC

I see this this morning and got a laugh...

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article178435876.html

California secessionists think their path to independence is easier than Catalonia’s

The world has been watching the play-by-play of Catalonia’s bid for independence from Spain, but one group is tuning in more closely than most: California secessionists.

The California Freedom Coalition, the campaign that has taken the lead in the effort to break California off from the United States, sees similarities with Catalonia’s secessionist movement. But there’s an important caveat: they believe California has more legal tools at its disposal, creating an easier path to secession – if that’s what Californians decide they want.

“There are definitely similarities in the fiscal situation – we both give more than we get back,” said Dave Marin, director of research and policy for the California Freedom Coalition. “But there’s more flexibility in the U.S. Constitution for secession than there is in the Spanish one. California has more tools available to it.

...

If secession is what Californians want, he says their path to independence will be easier thanks to the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says any powers not explicitly given to the federal government are retained by the states.

...


(underlining added by myself)

ROFLMAO

Horsepucky

If people in California believe that, they must not have been paying attention in History class.

We have been down this road before, and well... the results were not good.

From the decision of the US Supreme Court in Texas v. White 74 US 700 (1869). This case is a bit odd, given that the US Supreme Court was the court of original jurisdiction, and did NOT take the case on appeal.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/74/700

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government, by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation, each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still all powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term that the people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence, and that, "without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States." Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law.


Under the Articles of Confederation, the 'union' was perpetual.
The Constitution did not change this.
The 10th amendment is important, but does not apply to this.

The Federal Government has the responsibility that the State Government's are 'acceptable' under the Constitution.

There are three routes open for secession, and only three.

1. Natural right of revolution. We have tried this before. Our 'Civil War'. President Lincoln pursued this war for the purpose of 'holding the union together', not to 'free the slaves'. We have that in his own words.

Or...

2. Consent of the States. This term is not very well defined. How many States must agree? Does the Federal Government have a voice in it? Personally, I would think that a good figure would be the same level of approval as that required to Ratify Amendments to the US Constitution (3/4ths). But, I can also see reasoning that might require the Consent to be unanimous (to prevent a State from being thrown out of the Union against its will, for instance).

Or...

3. Probably the cleanest route for a State to leave the Union would be another Constitutional Amendment defining an exact process to be used... Unless, of course, the US Supreme Court wishes to be a jerk about it... There ARE some provisions of the US Constitution that are not amendable (case in point -- equal representation in the US Senate). Since the parts that need 'Amending' are not even *in* the Constitution, but instead in the Articles of Confederation, the US Supreme Court might decide that it is not amendable either.


For myself, I am a strong supporter of the democratic right of self-determination of a people. Also, I think that today's "nations" are way too big. Of course I am in favor of independence for California, Catalonia, Texas, the U.K., Scotland, etc., etc., etc.

That said, it is becoming increasingly difficult as time goes on for this independence to happen without the Right of Revolution being successfully invoked.

That is my opinion. What are you all's opinions?
https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.
ID: 1895029 · Report as offensive
Profile Clyde Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 9 Aug 99
Posts: 13834
Credit: 45,021,579
RAC: 801
United States
Message 1895330 - Posted: 14 Oct 2017, 15:03:18 UTC
Last modified: 14 Oct 2017, 15:05:54 UTC

Re: Consent of the States.

The 3/4 Consent of the other States, at first blush, seems to be a correct number.

But... With one additional provision.

3/4 of the State's Voters must also agree to Exit the Union.

Re: Right of Revolution.

Is actually Right of Revolt. Revolution is a successful Revolt. The chances of one or two States succeeding against all the others...

"For myself, I am a strong supporter of the democratic right of self-determination of a people. Also, I think that today's "nations" are way too big. Of course I am in favor of independence for California, Catalonia, Texas, the U.K., Scotland, etc., etc., etc."

Agree. But, referencing the USA, with the above proviso that it is a 3/4 voting agreement. A 50.1% imposing their 'Exit' wishes upon the other 49.9% in this very important matter. Might lead to a 'Civil War' inside that State.

Especially those 'Right to Bear Arms' States.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
--- George Santayana
ID: 1895330 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 23435
Credit: 39,374,236
RAC: 20,359
United States
Message 1895337 - Posted: 14 Oct 2017, 15:24:04 UTC - in response to Message 1895029.  

Major they might be right, but it is a two step process.
1) Drop state, become territory.
2) Territory becomes independent.

As you know through history territories have come and gone so this process has precedent.
The question mark is can a state drop statehood?

In the civil war the states took a different route, declare independence, and that path is closed.

The more interesting issue with Calexit is likely the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. California might revert to Mexico. Might that apply to Texit? ;-)
ID: 1895337 · Report as offensive
Profile Clyde Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 9 Aug 99
Posts: 13834
Credit: 45,021,579
RAC: 801
United States
Message 1895344 - Posted: 14 Oct 2017, 15:41:50 UTC - in response to Message 1895337.  
Last modified: 14 Oct 2017, 15:51:08 UTC

Major they might be right, but it is a two step process.
1) Drop state, become territory.
2) Territory becomes independent.

As you know through history territories have come and gone so this process has precedent.
The question mark is can a state drop statehood?

In the civil war the states took a different route, declare independence, and that path is closed.

The more interesting issue with Calexit is likely the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. California might revert to Mexico. Might that apply to Texit? ;-)

Actually. The Rightful Owners may be the Original, Immigrating to the America's, People.
'
Spain stole it from them. Mexico then received the Stolen Property.

Mexico believing it has any 'Right to Own' previously stolen property. Is...
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
--- George Santayana
ID: 1895344 · Report as offensive
Profile Clyde Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 9 Aug 99
Posts: 13834
Credit: 45,021,579
RAC: 801
United States
Message 1895349 - Posted: 14 Oct 2017, 15:58:54 UTC

Re: Calexit

Wondering if California will really have a referendum.

If they attempt. What will be the response by The Federal Government and the other States.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
--- George Santayana
ID: 1895349 · Report as offensive

Message boards : Politics : Calexit?


 
©2018 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.