Support NeoGAF

[Josh7289]

This sounds like a far bigger political battle than they're estimating, and depending on how serious they are, one that would almost assuredly not be resolved before resulting to arms. Is it really worth it?

 

[numble]

This sounds like a far bigger political battle than they're estimating, and one that almost assuredly would not be resolved before resulting to arms. Is it really worth it?

It is easily resolved when the voters vote against it (or don't even give you enough signatures to put it on the ballot).

 

[pa22word]

A couple paragraphs later:

6. When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. 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.​

For what it's worth, if California seceded with the consent of congress and the president, I don't see what it matters what the law is. No one would stop them unless there was a war and only Congress can declare war and only the president could order the military to attack them.

CA secession is a pretty silly idea though.

Considering the aforementioned quote, I take consent of the states to be more leaning towards constitutional convention. A simple petition in the form of a ballot seems insufficient if the break of the union is perpetual, especially considering the leading line before it was "revolution". Like I said, even if it went through I imagine SC will still block it.

Also congress is out of the picture with a rebellion because you can't declare war on a state without recognizing it, which in a rebellion is kind of the entire point of said rebellion. This also caused a lot of issues during the civil war with the blockade of the south.

There is posse comitus act, but who knows if that would even stand if the executive and legislative branch got in a fight over it.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Let's not give the Russians even more reason to celebrate and cause chaos please.

 

[Ahasverus]

I like how people cite the constitution as an argument as to why a state shouldn't seccede, while the constitution itself is the product of an independence fight. Imagine is the founding fathers thought "Welp, secession is illegal, sorry folks, back to Britain" LOL

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Anyone who supports the secession of California is selfish. Anyone who supports it and claims liberal is a hypocrite.

 

[pa22word]

I like how people cite the constitution as an argument as to why a state shouldn't seccede, while the constitution itself is the product of an independence fight.

No it isn't. Constitution was product of AoC being an abject failure.

The US existed as an independent state well before the constitution did.

 

[HStallion]

Why are people taking this seriously? Isn't its origin suspect to begin with and it sounds like a far fetched idea among far fetched ideas even if it were a serious movement with a non shady start.

 

[Skellig Gra]

This is a complete fantasy that is incredibly short sighted.

I like how people cite the constitution as an argument as to why a state shouldn't seccede, while the constitution itself is the product of an independence fight. Imagine is the founding fathers thought "Welp, secession is illegal, sorry folks, back to Britain" LOL

That is completely different. The American Revolution was all about proper governance and adequate representation in Parliament. California and their residents rights are not being infringed on in any way.

 

[Matt]

I like how people cite the constitution as an argument as to why a state shouldn't seccede, while the constitution itself is the product of an independence fight. Imagine is the founding fathers thought "Welp, secession is illegal, sorry folks, back to Britain" LOL

It's a perfectly reasonable thing to talk about in the context of what would be required for a peaceful secession.

 

[pa22word]

Why are people taking this seriously? Isn't its origin suspect to begin with and it sounds like a far fetched idea among far fetched ideas even if it were a serious movement with a non shady start.

I don't think anyone here is really taking this seriously.

I think most people keeping the thread running are just here having a discussion on constitutional quirks for the hell of it.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

The former Soviet Union must be loving this.

 

[Slayven]

Because people want a better life.

How would Cali folk's lives be better?

 

[Aaronrules380]

Even if they could theoretically secede with the agreement of other states, why the fuck would anyone expect even a single other state to agree?

Not to mention that I feel like California still faces several issues (like water scarcity) that it really needs the rest of the US to help with

 

[Hazzuh]

Gotta laugh at all the people in this thread saying that if a state wanted to leave it shouldn't be allowed to. What would these people think of Scotland or Quebec voted for independence and Canada or the UK just said "Nope, sorry lol"?

this is a dumb fake movement with weird possible (probable?) russian ties that should never (will never?) take hold

There are plenty of independence movements that started off as incredibly niche.

 

[Skellig Gra]

How would Cali folk's lives be better?

It wouldn't, it would make their lives worse. Enjoy that 2nd border wall and not being able to get a job or go to school anywhere but California, and losing access to a shit ton of water and power.

 

[Matt]

There are plenty of independence movements that started off as incredibly niche.

Yep. The difference here is, some of those worked.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Because people want a better life.

Those selfish enough to entertain the idea would be damning the lives of millions who rely on the state for progress in this country. In other words they have become the same as conservatives in a 'got mine' attitude.

 

[numble]

Considering the aforementioned quote, I take consent of the states to be more leaning towards constitutional convention. A simple petition in the form of a ballot seems insufficient if the break of the union is perpetual, especially considering the leading line before it was "revolution".

Also congress is out of the picture with a rebellion because you can't declare war on a state without recognizing it, which in a rebellion is kind of the entire point of said rebellion. This also caused a lot of issues during the civil war with the blockade of the south.

Given that the entry of states into the Union does not require a constitutional convention and simply requires the assent of Congress, the idea that the exit of states is a reversal of state entry (also requiring consent of Congress) is the more logical approach. This approach was followed in the Philippines.

Nobody is arguing that a unilateral ballot would break the union.

 

[SDCowboy]

It wouldn't, it would make their lives worse. Enjoy that 2nd border wall and not being able to get a job or go to school anywhere but California, and losing access to a shit ton of water and power.

Not to mention the state is essentially bankrupt.

 

[pa22word]

Given that the entry of states into the Union does not require a constitutional convention and simply requires the assent of Congress, the idea that the exit of states is a reversal of state entry (also requiring consent of Congress) is the more logical approach. This approach was followed in the Philippines.

Nobody is arguing that a unilateral ballot would break the union.

Yes, but literally speaking the States are no longer represented in congress in the same way they were when that decision was handed down. As of the 17th amendment the Senate now represents the people of the states vs the states themselves. Legally speaking the only existing framework for acquiring consent of the states that I can think of would be via constitutional convention.

 

[Gattsu25]

Given that the entry of states into the Union does not require a constitutional convention and simply requires the assent of Congress, the idea that the exit of states is a reversal of state entry (also requiring consent of Congress) is the more logical approach. This approach was followed in the Philippines.

Nobody is arguing that a unilateral ballot would break the union.

Except that's ​not what it says.

 

[JordanN]

On one hand, it would be hilarious if every U.S state did secede, leaving Trump completely powerless.

On the other hand, it would also mean Red States getting together and forming a new Confederacy, and from there they would love to bring back slavery and jim crow laws.

 

[SDCowboy]

On one hand, it would be hilarious if every U.S state did secede, leaving Trump completely powerless.

On the other hand, it would also mean Red States getting together and forming a new Confederacy, and from there they would love to bring back slavery and jim crow laws.

That would not be hilarious at all...

 

[Slayven]

It wouldn't, it would make their lives worse. Enjoy that 2nd border wall and not being able to get a job or go to school anywhere but California, and losing access to a shit ton of water and power.

Oh I know, that is just the infrastructure. There is a lot of military bases in cali, think about how fucked the farmers will be on transporting goods. How will shipping be handle since all of the west cost shipping comes through Cali?

When you think about it, the logistical problems are epic

 

[Skellig Gra]

On one hand, it would be hilarious if every U.S state did secede, leaving Trump completely powerless.

On the other hand, it would also mean Red States getting together and forming a new Confederacy, and from there they would love to bring back slavery and jim crow laws.

Yeah sick prank bro, destroy the country to stick it to Trump who is in office for under 4 years.

 

[Goro Majima]

California leaving would probably kickstart and open the door for a Balkanization of the US as a whole. I don't think the remaining blue states would accept innate GOP control of the presidency and probably the house. Russia would no doubt love for this to happen. I think Congress would also recognize that California leaving would result in nothing less than a destruction of the union.

But I also roll my eyes about California leaving because they're just "too progressive" when New England appears to be even deeper blue in elections and hasn't subscribed to this kind of fuckery.

Besides, give it a few years because it seems like a giant Democratic backlash is coming if recent elections are any indication.

 

[3rdman]

Some background information on one of the CalExit proponents:

KQED’s The California Report: https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2016/12/1...ia-calexit-leader-plots-california-secession/


The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...hind-a-secession-effort-in-california/517890/

Came in here to post this...Thanks!

 

[SDCowboy]

Yeah sick prank bro, destroy the country to stick it to Trump who is in office for under 4 years.

Seriously, when it comes to Trump, some folks really need to think their posts out before hitting the reply button sometimes. It's gotten ridiculous.

 

[Seth Enosh]

Considering the aforementioned quote, I take consent of the states to be more leaning towards constitutional convention. A simple petition in the form of a ballot seems insufficient if the break of the union is perpetual, especially considering the leading line before it was "revolution". Like I said, even if it went through I imagine SC will still block it.

Also congress is out of the picture with a rebellion because you can't declare war on a state without recognizing it, which in a rebellion is kind of the entire point of said rebellion. This also caused a lot of issues during the civil war with the blockade of the south.

There is posse comitus act, but who knows if that would even stand if the executive and legislative branch got in a fight over it.

The Supreme Court can't block secession in a meaningful way because it doesn't order troops to fight or not to fight. To stop secession the president would need to send in the military, just as Lincoln did.

Look at how Trump, Obama, and Clinton all violated the War Powers Act in various ways to get involved in other countries' wars without the consent of congress. In all cases the federal courts declined to deal with it and said controlling the military is a matter for congress and the president, a nonjudiciable "political question".

 

[JordanN]

Yeah sick prank bro, destroy the country to stick it to Trump who is in office for under 4 years.

I didn't say I wanted it to happen. I only think it would be funny because Trump is suppose to represent small government, and living up to that would be his [ironic] downfall.

 

[SDCowboy]

I didn't say I wanted it to happen. I only think it would be funny because Trump is suppose to represent small government, and living up to that would be his downfall.

If you think that situation would be funny, I'm sorry, but that's moronic.

 

[Gattsu25]

Came in here to post this...Thanks!

Yeah, the CalExit movement is literally receiving support from the Russian government.

They literally have a Russian embassy that Russia gifted to them.

They're literally led by a Russian that doesn't even live in California.

 

[pa22word]

The Supreme Court can't block secession in a meaningful way because it doesn't order troops to fight or not to fight. To stop secession the president would need to send in the military, just as Lincoln did.

Look at how Trump, Obama, and Clinton all violated the War Powers Act in various ways to get involved in other countries' wars without the consent of congress. In all cases the federal courts declined to deal with it and said controlling the military is a matter for congress and the president, a nonjudiciable "political question".

Well yes, the judicial branch can't send troops (see Andrew Jackson vs John Marshal) but it still makes secession unconstitutional.

Also, congress/executive both don't want to pick a fight over WPA because they're both are afraid they'll lose. Different scenario than this.

 

[numble]

Not to mention the state is essentially bankrupt.

It isn't essentially bankrupt, it has an adequate tax base to draw from. If California companies no longer paid US federal tax but instead a California corporate tax, California would have too much money.

Yes, but literally speaking the States are no longer represented in congress in the same way they were when that decision was handed down. As of the 17th amendment the Senate now represents the people of the states vs the states themselves. Legally speaking the only existing framework for acquiring consent of the states that I can think of would be via constitutional convention.

That is not what the 17th Amendment says. The Senators still represent their states.

The entry of states in the Constitution of 1792 was specifically through consent of Congress, which did not represent state legislatures in any event.

 

[Slayven]

Yeah, the CalExit movement is literally receiving support from the Russian government.

They literally have a Russian embassy that Russia gifted to them.

They're literally led by a Russian that doesn't even live in California.

I wonder how many actual bodies they have and how much is it just online noise?

It isn't essentially bankrupt, it has an adequate tax base to draw from. If California companies no longer paid US federal tax but instead a California corporate tax, California would have too much money.



That is not what the 17th Amendment says. The Senators still represent their states.

The entry of states in the Constitution of 1792 was specifically through consent of Congress, which did not represent state legislatures in any event.

I don't see how that will happen.

 

[HarryKS]

Are the people on this making money out of it?

 

[numble]

Except that's ​not what it says.

What does it say?

 

[Skellig Gra]

It isn't essentially bankrupt, it has an adequate tax base to draw from. If California companies no longer paid US federal tax but instead a California corporate tax, California would have too much money.

Yeah and those companies would also move their California based HQ's just like we're seeing with Brexit. They would be completely shut off from a huge talent pool.

 

[Calamari41]

"California seceding" really means "The Bay Area and Los Angeles County" seceding. The rest of the state wouldn't leave with them. And that's assuming that the federal government doesn't initiate a fifteen minute war to take the State back.

 

[Aaronrules380]

It isn't essentially bankrupt, it has an adequate tax base to draw from. If California companies no longer paid US federal tax but instead a California corporate tax, California would have too much money.



That is not what the 17th Amendment says. The Senators still represent their states.

The entry of states in the Constitution of 1792 was specifically through consent of Congress, which did not represent state legislatures in any event.

Does this even matter? neither method has any chance of succeeding.

 

[Gattsu25]

What does it say?

"There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Isn't California mostly red outside of the few "liberal havens" (chuckle)

 

[Crimson-Death]

Yeah, Washington can fuck itself in the ass, but this Russian ploy to secede will never come to fruition.

Try again, comrades.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Isn't California mostly red outside of the few "liberal havens" (chuckle)

I mean, this is pretty much true of every blue state. Cities in general tend to be liberal while rural areas are conservative

 

[numble]

Yeah and those companies would also move their California based HQ's just like we're seeing with Brexit.

Why would they? Companies are moving to Canada and the UK via inversions because of the US worldwide tax system, I do not see companies actively moving to the US. If they are moving, they would move to Canada, I guess. Unless you are involved in national security business like Boeing or Northrup, it is relatively beneficial to be a foreign company in the US--this is why people are always complaining about foreign companies.

 

[Gattsu25]

I wonder how many actual bodies they have and how much is it just online noise?

I wouldn't be surprised to see if the majority of on-the-ground support were from the techno-libertarians​ around Silicon Valley.

 

[SDCowboy]

I mean, this is pretty much true of every blue state. Cities in general tend to be liberal while rural areas are conservative

CA is different though in that it has actually major red areas. San Diego and Orange Country are super red.

 

[Skellig Gra]

Why would they? Companies are moving to Canada and the UK via inversions because of the US worldwide tax system, I do not see companies actively moving to the US. If they are moving, they would move to Canada, I guess. Unless you are involved in national security business like Boeing or Northrup, it is relatively beneficial to be a foreign company in the US--this is why people are always complaining about foreign companies.

You just said they'd have to pay way more tax. Why would they do that when they can easily just shift their HQ to New York City.

 

[Slayven]

I wouldn't be surprised to see if the majority of on-the-ground support were from the techno-libertarians​ around Silicon Valley.

For sure, i am shocked they are not leading the charge, or they might be smarter when it comes to their own lives.