Support NeoGAF

[radios shipping overview]

This is a total non-starter being pushed by people with devious motives and unrealistic goals.

 

[SkeptiMism]

“It has definitely been damaging to us getting big donors and hurting our ability to bring on new members because of clouding the issue without accurately reporting all the facts,” Evans said, citing the organization’s 44,000 “likes” on Facebook as just one example.

I found this quote pretty funny. Ok, he gives it just as an example but surely you can come up with a better example than fucking facebook likes as facts that are supposed to counter the issues clouding your movement.

Oh right, you probably can't though.

 

[pa22word]

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

Uh...

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

Seems pretty clear cut to me. If the people directly elect the senators, then the senators represent the interests of the people who voted for them and not the states themselves.

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

The body of the senate in its original format was specifically designed to represent the states, vs the House which was designed to represent the people of said states. Therefore, the consent of congress in 1792 meant something literally different than it does now due to the 17th amendment.

 

[Crimson-Death]

Also, how about instead of a divorce, we work together to enlighten the country, to unify the country, to lead the country, to get on the right path like California knows how, to fight the filthy alt-right and the Trump ball lickers and Trump himself.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Uh...


Seems pretty clear cut to me. If the people directly elect the senators, then the senators represent the interests of the people who voted for them and not the states themselves.



The body of the senate in its original format was specifically designed to represent the states, vs the House which was designed to represent the people of said states. Therefore, the consent of congress in 1792 meant something literally different than it does now due to the 17th amendment.

Is there any merit in arguing about one impossible method of gaining the states consent over another impossible method? Because neither is happening regardless

 

[numble]

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

But my argument is that Congress represents the States, and therefore provides the consent of the States. Read the Texas v. White opinion, and that idea is commonly reflected:

Texas was confessedly one of the United States of America, having a State constitution in accordance with that of the United States and represented by senators and representatives in the Congress at Washington.

But much question arose as to what was thus done, and the State was not acknowledged by the Congress of the United States as being reconstructed.

From the date of admission until 1861, the State was represented in the Congress of the United States by her senators and representatives, and her relations as a member of the Union remained unimpaired.

It is hardly a stretch to argue that the States are represented in Congress.

 

[IISANDERII]

Secession is an act of rebellion. If you think that brings a better life ask the people of Georgia how much better their life was after Sherman cut and pillaged a fiery path of destruction through their state.

I'm not talking about a military campaign or a violent secession.

 

[pa22word]

Is there any merit in arguing about one impossible method of gaining the states consent over another impossible method? Because neither is happening regardless

Not really. As I said before in this thread: I don't think anyone in here is really taking this thread seriously. I just see this as an interesting debate because I like having discussions about the constitution. If I'm wrong, so be it! I learned something new about my government today.

 

[numble]

Uh...


Seems pretty clear cut to me. If the people directly elect the senators, then the senators represent the interests of the people who voted for them and not the states themselves.



The body of the senate in its original format was specifically designed to represent the states, vs the House which was designed to represent the people of said states. Therefore, the consent of congress in 1792 meant something literally different than it does now due to the 17th amendment.

A State is also represented in Congress by its Representatives in the House, even though they were always directly elected by people; the Texas v. White opinion acknowledged that the representatives also represented the state:

Texas was confessedly one of the United States of America, having a State constitution in accordance with that of the United States and represented by senators and representatives in the Congress at Washington.

From the date of admission until 1861, the State was represented in the Congress of the United States by her senators and representatives, and her relations as a member of the Union remained unimpaired.

 

[Aaronrules380]

I'm not talking about a military campaign or a violent secession.

A peaceful secession is impossible with the current rules because it requires everyone else to agree. And those rules will never change

 

[Doctoglethorpe]

California is Americas only hope. If we somehow managed to split off, the rest of the country would be plunged into an endless dark age of republican rule. As much as the idea may sound appealing on a personal level, it would just be too devestating for literally the entire world.

 

[numble]

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.

The California state tax rate is 9% because companies also have to pay 35% US federal tax. If California is not part of the US, California companies don't pay the 35% US federal tax, but the 9% California tax rate would be the lowest corporate tax rate in the developed world--presumably they would raise it to something below 35%.

If you move to New York City, the corporate tax rate becomes something like 47-50% (35% US federal plus 7% New York state tax, plus 4%-9% New York City tax).

 

[IISANDERII]

A peaceful secession is impossible with the current rules because it requires everyone else to agree. And those rules will never change

How do you know that for certain??

 

[Aaronrules380]

The California state tax rate is 9% because companies also have to pay 35% US federal tax. If California is not part of the US, California companies don't pay the 35% US federal tax, but the 9% California tax rate would be the lowest corporate tax rate in the developed world--presumably they would raise it to something below 35%.

If you move to New York City, the corporate tax rate becomes something like 47-50% (35% US federal plus 7% New York state tax, plus 4%-9% New York City tax).

why do you think the california tax rates would remain the same in the case of a theoretical Calexit

 

[numble]

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

San Diego and Orange County were blue in 2016.

 

[Aaronrules380]

How do you know that for certain??

Because the other states have literally no reason to support California in this and many, many reasons to be against it

 

[numble]

why do you think the california tax rates would remain the same in the case of a theoretical Calexit

Where do I say it would remain the same?

but the 9% California tax rate would be the lowest corporate tax rate in the developed world--presumably they would raise it to something below 35%.

 

[Admiral Woofington]

Which is the next state to demand they be released? We had texit, then calexit, what's next?

 

[Calamari41]

The California state tax rate is 9% because companies also have to pay 35% US federal tax. If California is not part of the US, California companies don't pay the 35% US federal tax, but the 9% California tax rate would be the lowest corporate tax rate in the developed world--presumably they would raise it to something below 35%.

If you move to New York City, the corporate tax rate becomes something like 47-50% (35% US federal plus 7% New York state tax, plus 4%-9% New York City tax).

Assuming that the California State Legislature would keep taxes down if unshackled is not a safe assumption at all.

San Diego and Orange County were blue in 2016.

Orange County and San Diego Republicans tend to be a lot more NeverTrumper type Republicans than the nation at large. A lot more.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Where do I say it would remain the same?

oh I missed that

 

[SDCowboy]

San Diego and Orange County were blue in 2016.

They typically go red, though. They both have republican mayors.

 

[IISANDERII]

Because the other states have literally no reason to support California in this and many, many reasons to be against it

How does that take precedence over self determination?

 

[Aaronrules380]

How does that take precedence over self determination?

Because the constitution defines that states can't secede unilaterally and so any attempt to do so would inevitably lead to a civil war, as history has shown

 

[legacyzero]

Nope. You're stuck with us, CA. This is your problem too.

 

[cascardian]

"America first! America first!", the President shouts. "I will now read from the tremendous and great and beautiful Treaty of the Treason:

In penance for their uprising, each Californian district shall offer up a male and a female between the ages of 12 and 18 at a public 'grabbing'. These tributes shall be delivered to the custody of the Republican Capitol. And then transferred into a public arena, where they will fight to the death until a lone victor remains. Henceforth and forevermore this pageant shall be known as 'The American Gladiator Games'. Broadcast rights shall lie under the sole jurisdiction of state television service Fox News.

May Fox & Friends be in your favor! They're really great people! Watch Judge Judy tonight, she's done a tremendous job with the games."

 

[Thelonelykoopa]

Sorry California you will never be free , even if you try we will just bomb your cities into oblivion and burn down your vineyards and kale fields. Then when it's nothing but rubble we will use the land to establish floridian veteran colonies.

 

[caffeware]

What would they do in a drought?

 

[IISANDERII]

Because the constitution defines that states can't secede unilaterally and so any attempt to do so would inevitably lead to a civil war, as history has shown

History also shows laws changing, amending and the constitution getting violated continuously.

 

[Thebeardofknowledge]

California will leave eventually

 

[Razgriz-Specter]

I'm not talking about a military campaign or a violent secession.

The other states would never allow it, it would in no way be peaceful.

 

[Swiggins]

The other states would never allow it, it would in no way be peaceful.

Yep, as much as the Bible Belt likes to condemn California it's sure as hell not going to allow it to leave...not when it brings in the money that keeps states like Mississippi afloat.

 

[Aaronrules380]

History also shows laws changing, amending and the constitution getting violated continuously.

sure, but that doesn't change the fact that there's no logic that could ever convince the other states to change this part or let California go peacefully

 

[Gallbaro]

California will leave eventually

Well, the coastal area, the valley will get left behind.

 

[Jest Chillin]

Assuming that the California State Legislature would keep taxes down if unshackled is not a safe assumption at all.

They wouldn't keep the taxes down but they could easily keep the taxes under 35% and still see a massive surplus. California's economy is massive. Top 10 in the world when compared to countries. This is also a major reason why a Congress approved succession will never, ever, happen.

The idea of Cal-exit is a non-starter but not because of any Financial or Logistical reason on California's part. It would be too damaging to the US as a whole for the rest of the US to let it happen.

Years ago the San Fernando Valley tried to secede from LA County and similarly to a state trying to secede from the US, it required a passing vote from ALL of LA County to do so. It was soundly defeated. Because while the SFV is more than capable of supporting itself as a city, the rest of LA County would suffer tremendously for it, so nobody else will allow that to happen.

 

[killer rin]

What, the rules provide that a person in Guam is equal to a person in Kansas. Where do the rules say differently?



I don't really understand how you can say "the rules are very much different" and "in theory it isn't different". Sounds like you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

They can't vote for president for starters.

 

[ReAxion]

the only people that talk about this are journalists who go looking for weird fringe stories.

 

[SomTervo]

Probably ill-informed and arms-length brit perspective here, but I've always thought that many of the US's problems stem from the massive scale of its devolution. So many states, and so disparate in so many ways.

I for one welcome your cleaved... counterparts

the only people that talk about this are journalists who go looking for weird fringe stories.

Probably true

 

[killer rin]

Probably ill-informed and arms-length brit perspective here, but I've always thought that many of the US's problems stem from the massive scale of its devolution. So many states, and so disparate in so many ways.

I for one welcome your cleaved... counterparts

As much as I like to dream of a large unified world government. North America really should have three times as many countries as it currently does. Everything is just so completely different from region to region that it makes little sense to have everything connected.

 

[SomTervo]

As much as I like to dream of a large unified world government. North America really should have three times as many countries as it currently does. Everything is just so completely different from region to region that it makes little sense to have everything connected.

I like to think if we ever got a unified world, it would be three times as many "provinces" not countries

 

[Parch]

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"?

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

You just don't say nope, can't, illegal. If California wants to leave, they will leave. What are you going to do? Have a war? Kill Californians? Then enslave Californians?
Separation of countries is a historical reality. Sometimes it ends up being a nasty dispute but it still happens. Saying they can't means nothing to those who really want it.

 

[Aaronrules380]

You just don't say nope, can't, illegal. If California wants to leave, they will leave. What are you going to do? Have a war? Kill Californians? Then enslave Californians?
Separation of countries is a historical reality. Sometimes it ends up being a nasty dispute but it still happens. Saying they can't means nothing to those who really want it.

Yes, just like we did when the south tried to secede

 

[ISOM]

You just don't say nope, can't, illegal. If California wants to leave, they will leave. What are you going to do? Have a war? Kill Californians? Then enslave Californians?
Separation of countries is a historical reality. Sometimes it ends up being a nasty dispute but it still happens. Saying they can't means nothing to those who really want it.

You're acting like this country hasn't gone to war over secession before. It's not a state's sole decision as history has shown.

 

[Parch]

Yes, just like we did when the south tried to secede

Different circumstances. What percentage of Americans would support a military attack on California right now? I'm thinking that's not going to be a real popular political move.

 

[Jest Chillin]

You just don't say nope, can't, illegal. If California wants to leave, they will leave. What are you going to do? Have a war? Kill Californians? Then enslave Californians?
Separation of countries is a historical reality. Sometimes it ends up being a nasty dispute but it still happens. Saying they can't means nothing to those who really want it.

Yes to all those questions. We're talking about political ideologies as well as truly massive land, wealth, and strategical value to the US being lost in a succession. All classic reasons for war. The only thing missing is religion but political ideologies are nearly synonymous at this point.

And California doesn't have the military resources to put up any kind of decent fight on it's own. It would be a pointless massacre to even try.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Different circumstances. What percentage of Americans would support a military attack on California right now? I'm thinking that's not going to be a real popular political move.

If they were trying to secede you'd probably see a pretty high percent of support because secession of California would be devestating to the rest of the country. Right now is irrelevant since California by and large doesn't want to secede right now either

 

[Parch]

It would be a pointless massacre to even try.

So the American public would support a pointless massacre of killing other Americans. Why am I not surprised.

 

[Parch]

Yes to all those questions.

Slavery? Really?

 

[ISOM]

So the American public would support a pointless massacre of killing other Americans. Why am I not surprised.

They wouldn't be Americans anymore if they decided to leave the Union. That's number 1.

 

[Jest Chillin]

So the American public would support a pointless massacre of killing other Americans. Why am I not surprised.

Slavery? Really?

The American public has been divisive on other issues of war and it hasn't stopped the country from pursuing it. As for the slavery thing, apologies. I glossed over that aspect of your post as I assumed it was intentional hyperbole and not meant to be taken seriously because, well, I can't see posing that question as anything other than hyperbole. But to address it specifically, no. I don't think they would resort to slavery.

 

[SkyOdin]

Probably ill-informed and arms-length brit perspective here, but I've always thought that many of the US's problems stem from the massive scale of its devolution. So many states, and so disparate in so many ways.

I for one welcome your cleaved... counterparts



Probably true

We have a federal system, we are perfectly capable of reconciling national unity with disparate state culture. It is one of the chief advantages of how our government is set up. It is used sucessfully in other countries as well. Notably, India uses a federal structure. India is a more diverse region than the whole of Europe, with little history of political unity across the whole subcontinent. People in different Indian states speak completely different languages from each other. They make it work in the same way the US does: maintaining both a strong federal government and individual states with their own strong governments. Federalism works pretty damn well.

Back on the main topic, I am confident that the entire idea of Calexit is a farce cooked up by people who don't actually live in California. It is nothing more than a blatent atempt to drive a wedge between people in the US and make California look silly. As someone who has lived almost his entire life in this state, I have never even heard of any seccession talk until this last November. I've occasionally heard stories over the years of fringe loonies in Texas talking about secession, but never anyone in California. It has clearly been invented by Russian trolls or other people with an agenda. I don't think it is even worth taking seriously.