Support NeoGAF

[SciencePilot]

Secession is not impossible and it definitely wouldn't be violent. Here's how it would work:

Californians vote on an intent to secede (but not actually secede). California then proposes a constitutional amendment to secede. This would then have to be ratified by the rest of the country. That would be the hard part. But the point is, this doesn't have to be done illegally. The Constitution can be changed.

 

[johnny956]

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

The U.S could easily stop a succession without war. Trade restrictions, financial restrictions etc. It'll never happen as California residents would never approve it

 

[HeatBoost]

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.

So what is the alternative for California if it doesn't want to deal with such a signifigant portion of the rest of the country being politically opposed to all the shit it wants? How long does "You can't leave because we need you, but also fuck you" hold water?

 

[SkyOdin]

So what is the alternative for California if it doesn't want to deal with such a signifigant portion of the rest of the country being politically opposed to all the shit it wants? How long does "You can't leave because we need you, but also fuck you" hold water?

Well for one, California can make its own laws that apply inside its own borders. The number of issues where it is held back by federal laws are relatively few in number. We don't need approval from other states in order for us to have the most stringent gun laws and environmental regulations in the country.

Furthermore, California's massive economy gives us a large amount of leverage over the rest of the country. For example, Californian regulations over cars are pretty much forced on the rest of the country because the Californian market is so damn big. Car manufacturers can't afford to produce two seperate models for California and the rest of the US.

So all told we have a pretty decent situation. California would be in worse straights outside the US, since benefit greatly from the advantages that cone with being part of one of the world's largest countries.

 

[aspaceman55]

[]

 

[CherryWoodFuton]

Well for one, California can make its own laws that apply inside its own borders. The number of issues where it is held back by federal laws are relatively few in number. We don't need approval from other states in order for us to have the most stringent gun laws and environmental regulations in the country.

Furthermore, California's massive economy gives us a large amount of leverage over the rest of the country. For example, Californian regulations over cars are pretty much forced on the rest of the country because the Californian market is so damn big. Car manufacturers can't afford to produce two seperate models for California and the rest of the US.

So all told we have a pretty decent situation. California would be in worse straights outside the US, since benefit greatly from the advantages that cone with being part of one of the world's largest countries.

So basically as a state California can basically have laws that contradict Federal law? Do states have that much power?

 

[Zolo]

The effort, uphill from the start, has not been helped, he said, by reports linking the Calexit movement to Russia, which Evans called preposterous and unfair. The co-leader of Yes California is Louis Marinelli, a former San Diego-area Assembly candidate now teaching English in Russia, where, among promotional activities, he appeared last fall at a Kremlin-backed pro-secession conference in Moscow.

“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.

:|

 

[Jest Chillin]

So what is the alternative for California if it doesn't want to deal with such a signifigant portion of the rest of the country being politically opposed to all the shit it wants? How long does "You can't leave because we need you, but also fuck you" hold water?

That's the real question, now isn't it? I couldn't propose a pro-active solution to be honest. The only hope is that enough of the country moves away from ideologies that conflict with what the majority of Californians believe.

As it's been pointed out though, California is not completely homogeneous in it's ideologies either. Like the rest of the country the progressives are primarily in the major cities while the more rural areas are conservative. So not all Californians feel like they're being politically ignored by a conservative federal gov't and in fact, they most likely feel like their opinions are finally being represented.

Politically, California isn't in any different a position than other states with major progressive cities within them. The difference is that California's economy is massive enough that some think secession is feasible. And while techincally that's true, practically it's not very likely and the reprecussions of such a move could be potentially disastrous.

So basically as a state California can basically have laws that contradict Federal law? Do states have that much power?

Any state can, technically, but it becomes a legal quagmire. Examples of which would be the legalization of Marijuana (both medically and recreationally) in many States while it's still Federally criminalized. To an extent Sanctuary Cities and State Gov't's suing the Federal Gov't over the immigration policies are another example.

 

[Jmanunknown]

So basically as a state California can basically have laws that contradict Federal law? Do states have that much power?

Yes and no states can make their own laws but people are still subject to federal laws. Like take marijuana as an example any state can legalize it if they want but an individual would still be subject to federal laws since federal laws supersede state laws. So states where marijuana is legal it is both technically legal and illegal.

So what is the alternative for California if it doesn't want to deal with such a signifigant portion of the rest of the country being politically opposed to all the shit it wants? How long does "You can't leave because we need you, but also fuck you" hold water?

Its not just California though a good portion of America is not being represented properly. It all comes down to a mix of different factors which include diversity, cities vs rural areas, gerrymandering, and voter suppression. Land has more of a voice then actual people in the US.

 

[TAJ]

If the Republican dream of a partisan constitutional convention comes true then the country will split in half anyway.

 

[Lynn616]

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

Why? California receives $0.99 in federal expenditures per dollar of taxes paid. So it is close to break even.

 

[7DollarHagane]

Having to pony up their portion of the national debt alone shuts the door, locks it, burns down the house, and floods the county surrounding it in 50 feet of swamp water on this idea.

 

[One Eyed Willy]

Why are people entertaining this?

sore losers

 

[SkyOdin]

So basically as a state California can basically have laws that contradict Federal law? Do states have that much power?

State law can't contradict federal law, but federal law is limited in scope in practice and by the Constitution. For example, all criminal law (burglary, muder, etc) is handled by the states in the US, not the federal government. Likewise, marriage, contract law, corporate law, and so on are handled primarily by the states.

Now, there are places where the two contradict and things get messy. To take a heavily publicized recent example, marijuana is currently banned under federal law, but legal (with caveats) under California state law. If you smoke marijuana in California, you are technically breaking federal law. However, under the Obama administration, the Justice department had a policy of not pressing charges for marijuana use in states where possession of it was legal under state law. I'm not sure what the status of that is under the current administration.

Generally speaking though, the US Federal Government is far more removed from day to day life than people outside the US might realize. Most of the Federal government's power to make law comes from its authority to regulate the economy. For example, the Federal government doesn't have the authority to declare murder illegal. That is strictly outside the realm where it can legislate.

 

[Jest Chillin]

Why? California receives $0.99 in federal expenditures per dollar of taxes paid. So it is close to break even.

It's more than just the taxes. California has the busiest ports on the West Coast and is a huge source of agriculture for the country. There's other aspects I can't recall off the top of my head as well.

 

[StrategyFan]

the actual organized movement to do this is kind of dumb, but from California's perspective we basically have a shitty system where the person who lost the election gets the job of president

when our votes don't matter and we don't get mathematically fair representation, not being part of that undemocratic system is what makes the most sense

 

[UncleSporky]

I'm trying to picture how all the details would work.

Like what about resources that sit in California explicitly sent there or owned by the US government or military. California claims them immediately? Ships them back in a show of good faith/attitude of "we can do it on our own?"

What about members of the military from all across the US who are stationed in California for whatever reason, are they suddenly prevented from leaving and drafted into California's new military, or else imprisoned/killed?

Picture all the business deals that would have to be renegotiated on the basis of California being a new entity. Even something as simple as maintaining or opening a new McDonald's restaurant or Wal-Mart, which now requires border crossings into a new country to ship product, including taxes/tarriffs etc.

 

[CherryWoodFuton]

State law can't contradict federal law, but federal law is limited in scope in practice and by the Constitution. For example, all criminal law (burglary, muder, etc) is handled by the states in the US, not the federal government. Likewise, marriage, contract law, corporate law, and so on are handled primarily by the states.

Now, there are places where the two contradict and things get messy. To take a heavily publicized recent example, marijuana is currently banned under federal law, but legal (with caveats) under California state law. If you smoke marijuana in California, you are technically breaking federal law. However, under the Obama administration, the Justice department had a policy of not pressing charges for marijuana use in states where possession of it was legal under state law. I'm not sure what the status of that is under the current administration.

Generally speaking though, the US Federal Government is far more removed from day to day life than people outside the US might realize. Most of the Federal government's power to make law comes from its authority to regulate the economy. For example, the Federal government doesn't have the authority to declare murder illegal. That is strictly outside the realm where it can legislate.

So basically for example marijuana, if the current DOJ (which sounds like it would because Jeff Sessions is an idiot) wants to ramp up the enforcement of prosecuting marijuana users they have the power to do so despite California state law?

Also another example, if marriage licenses are primarily left up to the states can a certain state have the ability to not recognize a marriage license that was issued out of state?

 

[nacimento]

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.

That's a silly argument. I guess that you should never fight back against a dictatorship, because you should ask the people who were tortured and murdered, they didnt get a better life after all.

But this cali secession is not gonna happen anyway, so who cares.

 

[AlphaDump]

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

And yet for whatever reason the thread hasn't been locked yet. What discussion or attention does this "transparent" movement really need? It simply isnt based in reality and is just another way to fracture the discussion of unification.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

none of the plans seems likely to reach fruition anytime soon, if ever.

The most worthwhile sentence in the entire article.

 

[SomTervo]

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.

India has a lot of problems and i don't think the federal system is ubiquitously loved over there. I know people who are critical of the system in the USA too.

My scepticism mainly revolves around representation and culture. You can't deny it makes no sense that states that are very "left" are under the same umbrella as ones that are on the "right".

Like if CA really cleaved... What would change? I mean for the average person. Over time, their politics would and they'd find their own way of doing things, that might have an impact but right now it wouldn't make any difference?

Like right here you're pretty much saying it's pointless, except for economical regulation which has been fucked up more than once and in more than one way

 

[Not]

America needs California. We're you're only chance.

 

[superdeluxe]

The only way this ever happens is if the Yellowstone Caldera blows up essentially destroying the middle of the county.

 

[Jacob]

So basically for example marijuana, if the current DOJ (which sounds like it would because Jeff Sessions is an idiot) wants to ramp up the enforcement of prosecuting marijuana users they have the power to do so despite California state law?

Also another example, if marriage licenses are primarily left up to the states can a certain state have the ability to not recognize a marriage license that was issued out of state?

The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution requires the states to recognize each other's "public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings" (capitalization in the original). This includes marriage licenses. Before same-sex marriage became legal nationwide some states flaunted this requirement, but they were legally in the wrong. It became a moot point after the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage is a right based on other parts of the Constitution.

There are multiple areas of friction between the states and the federal governments on issues where not everyone agrees. Marijuana legalization is one of them. If the state and federal governments can't come to an agreement, it becomes a question for the courts to decide. Generally speaking though the federal system works well given how large and diverse the country is.

 

[Parham]

If this somehow reached the ballot, I would absolutely vote against it without hesitation.

 

[SkyOdin]

So basically for example marijuana, if the current DOJ (which sounds like it would because Jeff Sessions is an idiot) wants to ramp up the enforcement of prosecuting marijuana users they have the power to do so despite California state law?

Also another example, if marriage licenses are primarily left up to the states can a certain state have the ability to not recognize a marriage license that was issued out of state?

For the former, yes, the DoJ would be able to prosecute people for possession of marijuana if they they decided to do so. Federal law overrides state law. There is an explicit hierarchy of law in the US: Constitution > Federal Law > State Constitution > State Law > Local Ordinance. Things higher in the hierarchy override those lower in it. In practice though, it would be up to federal law enforcement agencies and prosecutors to do all of the legwork.

As for the latter question, all state-issued licenses and other similar legal constructions are mutually honored by every state in the US as a matter of basic legal principle. This applies to marriage licenses, driver licenses, and even the incorporation of major international corporations. Furthermore, Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution says that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the Acts, Records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." So it is unconstitutional for one state to deny a marriage license granted by another state, even if that state would not itself issue that license.

 

[iPaul93]

Not gonna happen.

 

[shandy706]

California is going to secede. Then ban guns. Once they successfully do so...Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona will secede and make open carry of anything short of rocket launchers legal in New New Texas.

New New Texas invades California. California's citizens have no way to defend themselves and the New New Texas Army and citizen militias overwhelm them. New New Texas suddenly becomes one of the largest countries in the Americas.

I could see a movie coming from this....or maybe one of those vidja games. Maybe they invade Washington after that, then move on to Canada where the United States and Canada join forces against New New Texas.

Spoiler

Slow day at the office.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Secession is not impossible and it definitely wouldn't be violent. Here's how it would work:

Californians vote on an intent to secede (but not actually secede). California then proposes a constitutional amendment to secede. This would then have to be ratified by the rest of the country. That would be the hard part. But the point is, this doesn't have to be done illegally. The Constitution can be changed.

In theory sure. In practice getting any other part of the country to agree to such an amendment would be pretty much impossible, much less getting enough of the country to agree to pass such an amendment. It's technically not impossible, but it might as well be

 

[Not]

California is going to secede. Then ban guns. Once they successfully do so...Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona will secede and make open carry of anything short of rocket launchers legal in New New Texas.

New New Texas invades California. California's citizens have no way to defend themselves and the New New Texas Army and citizen militias overwhelm them. New New Texas suddenly becomes one of the largest countries in the Americas.

I could see a movie coming from this....or maybe one of those vidja games. Maybe they invade Washington after that, then move on to Canada where the United States and Canada join forces against New New Texas.

Spoiler

Slow day at the office.

"This will never happen," says increasingly nervous Californian

 

[SkyOdin]

India has a lot of problems and i don't think the federal system is ubiquitously loved over there. I know people who are critical of the system in the USA too.

My scepticism mainly revolves around representation and culture. You can't deny it makes no sense that states that are very "left" are under the same umbrella as ones that are on the "right".

Like if CA really cleaved... What would change? I mean for the average person. Over time, their politics would and they'd find their own way of doing things, that might have an impact but right now it wouldn't make any difference?



Like right here you're pretty much saying it's pointless, except for economical regulation which has been fucked up more than once and in more than one way

Why doesn't it make sense? Nations are not built out of ideological homogeneity. Hell, California isn't some uniform liberal utopia, it has tons of conservatives living in it. There is no state in the world where every one of its citizens agree on everything. Politics is simply the process by which people sort out these differences and decide on a collective course of action. Disagreements will always happen, whether or not California stays in the Union or not.

And as for your argument that nothing would change for most people if California left the union, that is blatently mistaken. As I said earlier, California gets significant benefits from being part of one of the world's largest countries. Leaving the US would devastate the Californian economy and significantly weaken its ability to remain competitive in industries such as technology. It would also aggravate some of its current infrastructure problems. Stability and security would become less certain.

Calexit is just political utopianism with no basis in reality. It creates a ton of problems and solves nothing. Furthermore, I emphatically reject the notion that political ideology should be used as the basis for national borders. That is a flawed premise and a dangerous road to go down.

 

[studyguy]

Surprised people even humor these threads. This shit is a joke here in CA as is anyone who takes even an ounce of it seriously.

 

[Madness]

How about no. Without California Democrats would never win another presidency.

Without the rest of the US as a superpower, California also wouldn't be California. The morons there actually believe they can sustain what they have without the rest of the US. The US needs California just like California needs the US.

 

[mas8705]

The fact that this is even being entertained as a thing is a joke in itself. Hell knows that when it comes to elections, if your choice didn't win, then tough luck there. I went third party myself since I knew both choices were poor ones at that.

Just makes a state seem like sore losers when this nonsense happens (don't recall if Texas threatened to do the same thing, although I wouldn't be shocked if it might have been brought up...)

 

[MattKeil]

California will leave eventually

Not remotely possible in any scenario.

The CalExit movement is about as plausible as the city of Rapture.

 

[Black_Sun]

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

Lol wut?

I live in California and in San Diego.

San Diego isn't super red. Hell, it has an army and navy base there but it still voted for Hillary. It's a blue county. Not as blue as San Fran but still blue.

Orange County just recently turned into more of a purple county and voted for Hillary.

Right now California unlike most states is mostly blue not just in population but also in area and number of counties.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...ia_Presidential_Election_Results_2016.svg.png

 

[Platinumstorm]

Part of the secession movement is actually ran by an office in....... Siberia.

It's foolish to think that California wouldn't suffer massive economic consequences by leaving the US.

Their prosperity has only been enabled by having a US that doesn't specialize in areas that California has.

 

[Black_Sun]

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

San Diego county has not gone red in a presidential election since 2004. It's a blue county.

And California has a law that makes local positions non-partisan which means that their party affiliation is less important to their decision-making as well.

That's on top of most Californians being more moderate than the usual Republicans you see in other states like Kansas.

 

[Cyan]

Really burying the lede here. The big news out of this story:

citing the organization’s 44,000 “likes” on Facebook as just one example.

This movement is pretty much unstoppable.

 

[antibolo]

I would love an independent California and would probably immigrate there.

But I can't possibly see that ever happening.

 

[chromatic9]

People dismiss it out of hand but as time goes on the more the values could differ from one region to another.

US could look at the EU model and have states which are the size of EU countries elect their own liberal or conservative leaders.

I'm sure Junker will approve.

 

[Gabriel_Logan]

The only cool thing that could come out of this is they can call it the NCR.

 

[HomerSimpson-Man]

This always seems to come up one in a while with Texas and California.

The short answer is it's not happening.

The long answer is it's really really really not going to happen without war.

If you ever reach a point in which a state actually is trying to get independence trying to succeed from the US, then the US is probably in a very very bad place and it's probably is a civil war looming or already happening when it does. We already fought a war that said no. And it would take the majority of the states to agree to have a state succeed, as they can't do it own their own, they have to be given permission, in which I can't see happening.

 

[Parch]

I'm trying to picture how all the details would work.

Like what about resources that sit in California explicitly sent there or owned by the US government or military. California claims them immediately? Ships them back in a show of good faith/attitude of "we can do it on our own?"

What about members of the military from all across the US who are stationed in California for whatever reason, are they suddenly prevented from leaving and drafted into California's new military, or else imprisoned/killed?

Picture all the business deals that would have to be renegotiated on the basis of California being a new entity. Even something as simple as maintaining or opening a new McDonald's restaurant or Wal-Mart, which now requires border crossings into a new country to ship product, including taxes/tarriffs etc.

Reminds me of when Quebec was having separation referendums. There was a huge assumption that Quebec would just divvy up government resources, but it wasn't going to work that way. Federal property is Canada's, not Quebec's. All of the government programs would end and Quebec would have to form their own. Equalization payments would end. All the federal employees would be relocated or given the choice to quit. Canada Post, military, etc. All of the government contracts given to Quebec, which was plentiful, would be relocated to other provinces. A huge number of businesses would want to leave, along with a large percentage of the population. They would have to chose if they wanted to be part of Canada or Quebec. The english population and businesses would leave in droves.
Canada would owe Quebec nothing, and the assumption that they were "entitled" to stuff wasn't what they expected. When they started thinking about the details of separation and the economic impact, people started to have second thoughts.

California's economic situation is quite a bit different from Quebec's, and plenty of people would actually want to relocate to California, but the details of separation would still be very complicated.

 

[commedieu]

I'd be a part of texas. Or mexico.

Health care is better either way.

Edit: Texas?

Meant canada.

 

[The Shadow]

It's illegal to ballot for secession anyway as secession is flatly illegal and considered an act of rebellion so the petition effort seems pointless, and frankly utterly stupid.

We really need to do a much better job teaching kids in this country about the civil war.

I think it's known that it's illegal. At least I hope it is. A lot of times these separation attempts, and there's a lot more than just California, are more symbolic than anything else.

 

[Ghostshark]

I would like to see it on the ballot and get a decent number of votes.

Actually seceding would be insane, but there has to be some significant message to the federal government. I'm still amazed Trump didn't get attacked more by us for threatening to defund our entire state when California gives more to the country than it takes. Also, Sessions trying to undermine state law with his desire a worse drug war.

"States Rights" above all, except for states that disagree right?

 

[QuantumBro]

Louis Marinelli announced he's withdrawing his ballot measure in order to focus on becoming a permanent resident of Russia.

As I have stated in the past, I do not wish to live under the American flag. I do not wish to live under the American political system or within the American economic system. Regardless, I had long planned to eventually return to occupied California and struggle for her independence from the United States so we could build the kind of country that reflects our progressive values. However, while my frustration, disappointment and disillusionment with the United States remains, these feelings now point me in a different direction. I have found in Russia a new happiness, a life without the albatross of frustration and resentment towards ones’ homeland, and a future detached from the partisan divisions and animosity that has thus far engulfed my entire adult life.

Consequently, if the people of Russia would be so kind as to welcome me here on a permanent basis, I intend to make Russia my new home.

Accordingly, as the author and architect of the Calexit ballot initiative petition which is currently circulating in California, it is only proper, given my intention to seek permanent residence in Russia and not return to California in the foreseeable future, to withdraw that petition from circulation, and to allow a new petition, free from ties to me and drafted by others, to be resubmitted at future date of their choosing.

Someday, after you’ve read this email and after the false allegations about me vanish, and after this period of anti-Russian hysteria subsides, may it be said of this campaign that we spoke the truth, may it be said of this campaign that we fought the good fight, and may it be said of this campaign that we set in motion a series of events that led California to independence from the United States.

 

[shem935]

Really burying the lede here. The big news out of this story:



This movement is pretty much unstoppable.

That applies at least 6 points of retroactive momentum. California has now seceded with the extra action points.

Also lol, "Muh progressive values" *moves to russia* ^^^