Is CalExit viable (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


WickedsDesire -> Is CalExit viable (11/12/2016 8:23:11 AM)

Is it viable and can they do it?

Curious when you think about it as Farage was there at one of many Turnips mob gatherings, claiming the credit for Brexit - yes our halfwits voted for it for they were fed a load of codswallop...Well the English did, and wales you shamed me Scotland and Northern Ireland vote to remain.




Musicmystery -> RE: Is CalExit viable (11/12/2016 8:25:13 AM)

They can vote, but they can't actually do it unless the US Constitution is changed.

There's a process for joining, but not for leaving, and US Supreme Court precedent clarifies that a state cannot unilaterally leave.




WickedsDesire -> RE: Is CalExit viable (11/12/2016 8:51:43 AM)

Secession in the United States properly refers to State secession, which is the withdrawal of one or more States from the Union that constitutes the United States; but may loosely refer to leaving a State or territory to form a separate territory or new State, or to the severing of an area from a city or county within a State.

Threats and aspirations to secede from the United States, or arguments justifying secession, have been a feature of the country's politics almost since its birth. Some have argued for secession as a constitutional right and others as from a natural right of revolution. In Texas v. White, the United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional, while commenting that revolution or consent of the States could lead to a successful secession.

The most serious attempt at secession was advanced in the years 1860 and 1861 as eleven southern States each declared secession from the United States, and joined together to form the Confederate States of America. This movement collapsed in 1865 with the defeat of Confederate forces by Union armies in the American Civil War.[1]

A 2008 Zogby International poll found that 22% of Americans believed that "any state or region has the right to peaceably secede and become an independent republic".[2] A 2014 Reuters/Ipsos poll showed 23.9% of Americans supported their state seceding from the union if necessary; 53.3% opposed the idea. Republicans were somewhat more supportive than Democrats. Respondents cited issues like gridlock, governmental overreach, the Affordable Care Act and a loss of faith in the federal government as reasons for secession

Hmm my reading of it it hinged/hinges on this ruling Chase, [Chief Justice], ruled in favor of Texas on the ground that the Confederate state government in Texas had no legal existence on the basis that the secession of Texas from the United States was illegal. The critical finding underpinning the ruling that Texas could not secede from the United States was that, following its admission to the United States in 1845, Texas had become part of "an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states." In practical terms, this meant that Texas has never seceded from the United States

Curious - The late 20th and early 21st centuries have seen examples of local and state secession movements. All such movements to create new states have failed. The formation in 1971 of the Libertarian Party and its national platform affirmed the right of states to secede on three vital principles: "We shall support recognition of the right to secede. Political units or areas which do secede should be recognized by the United States as independent political entities where: (1) secession is supported by a majority within the political unit, (2) the majority does not attempt suppression of the dissenting minority, and (3) the government of the new entity is at least as compatible with human freedom as that from which it seceded.
__________________________

I remember 10 years old at school and a teacher said population of New York 8 million or something and I said that wasn't much for a country - she said "state"

I only found out today that California has the most electoral college votes at 49 or something

I still firmly believe 100% he will be impeached for being an insane monster

Time dictates that the Scotland will break away...The "UK" just has from the EU - though that one is still rumbling on.

never thought i'd see the day it happened to America




WickedsDesire -> RE: Is CalExit viable (11/12/2016 8:53:23 AM)

What would be the first mechanism could they hold a referendum?




WhoreMods -> RE: Is CalExit viable (11/12/2016 8:53:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

They can vote, but they can't actually do it unless the US Constitution is changed.

There's a process for joining, but not for leaving, and US Supreme Court precedent clarifies that a state cannot unilaterally leave.

That business in the 1860s?




Musicmystery -> RE: Is CalExit viable (11/12/2016 8:59:55 AM)

Texas v. White[58] was argued before the United States Supreme Court during the December 1868 term. Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase read the Court's decision, on April 15, 1869.[60] Australian Professors Peter Radan and Aleksandar Pavkovic write:

Chase, [Chief Justice], ruled in favor of Texas on the ground that the Confederate state government in Texas had no legal existence on the basis that the secession of Texas from the United States was illegal. The critical finding underpinning the ruling that Texas could not secede from the United States was that, following its admission to the United States in 1845, Texas had become part of "an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states." In practical terms, this meant that Texas has never seceded from the United States.[61]

However, the Court's decision recognized some possibility of the divisibility "through revolution, or through consent of the States".[61][62]

In 1877, the Williams v. Bruffy[63] decision was rendered, pertaining to civil war debts. The Court wrote regarding acts establishing an independent government that "The validity of its acts, both against the parent state and the citizens or subjects thereof, depends entirely upon its ultimate success; if it fail to establish itself permanently, all such acts perish with it; if it succeed and become recognized, its acts from the commencement of its existence are upheld as those of an independent nation."[61][64]
The Union as a sovereign state

Historian Kenneth Stampp notes that a historical case against secession had been made that argued that "the Union is older than the states" and that "the provision for a perpetual Union in the Articles of Confederation" was carried over into the Constitution by the "reminder that the preamble to the new Constitution gives us one of its purposes the formation of 'a more perfect Union'."[23] Concerning the White decision Stampp wrote:

In 1869, when the Supreme Court, in Texas v. White, finally rejected as untenable the case for a constitutional right of secession, it stressed this historical argument. The Union, the Court said, "never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation." Rather, "It began among the Colonies. ...It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation."[23]

Texas secession from Mexico

The Republic of Texas successfully seceded from Mexico in 1836 (this, however took the form of outright rebellion against Mexico, and claimed no warrant under the Mexican Constitution to do so). Mexico refused to recognize its revolted province as an independent country, but the major nations of the world did recognize it. In 1845, Congress admitted Texas as a state. The documents governing Texas' accession to the United States of America do not mention any right of secession—although they did raise the possibility of dividing Texas into multiple states inside the Union. Mexico warned that annexation meant war and the Mexican–American War followed in 1846.[65]
Partition of a state

Article IV, Section. 3, Clause 1 of the United States Constitutions provides:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The separation referred to is not secession but partition. Some of the movements to partition states have incorrectly identified themselves as "secessionist" movements.

Of the new states admitted to the Union by Congress, three were set off from already existing states,[66] while one was established upon land claimed by an existing state after existing for several years as a de facto independent republic. They are:

Vermont was admitted as a new state in 1791[67] after the legislature of New York ceded its claim to the region in 1790. New York's claim that Vermont (also known as the New Hampshire Grants) was legally a part of New York was and remains a matter of disagreement. King George III, ruled in 1764 that the region belonged to the Province of New York.
Kentucky was a part of Virginia until it was admitted as a new state in 1792[68] with the consent of the legislature of Virginia in 1789.[69]
Maine was a part of Massachusetts until it was admitted as a new state in 1820[70] after the legislature of Massachusetts consented in 1819.[69]
West Virginia was a part of Virginia until it was admitted as a new state in 1863[71] after the General Assembly of the Restored Government of Virginia consented in 1862.[72] The question of whether the legislature of Virginia consented is controversial, as Virginia was one of the Confederate states. However, antisecessionist Virginians formed a government in exile, which was recognized by the United States and approved the state's partition. Later, by its ruling in Virginia v. West Virginia (1871), the Supreme Court implicitly affirmed that the breakaway Virginia counties did have the proper consents required to become a separate state.[73]

See also: Admission to the Union

Many proposals to partition U.S. states have been unsuccessful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States




SunDominant -> RE: Is CalExit viable (11/12/2016 9:06:22 AM)

While not receiving the blessing of law, they could still do it. Congress would never send troops into California to forcibly retain it in the Union. If they want to secede, I say more power to them.




Musicmystery -> RE: Is CalExit viable (11/12/2016 9:21:18 AM)

[image]https://a.hrc.onl/imageman/feed-gifs/pb-gif-4.gif[/image]




SunDominant -> RE: Is CalExit viable (11/12/2016 9:24:33 AM)

[:D]




BitaTruble -> RE: Is CalExit viable (11/12/2016 9:46:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire

What would be the first mechanism could they hold a referendum?


1. Write a petition, get enough people to sign it and it will be on the next ballot.
2. If it passes, get 2/3 of the states to agree through their own petition/ballot process and it's done.

Piece of cake. ;)

Folks don't usually have many nice things to say about CA going so far as to wish total destruction upon us. (my 8 year grandson lives here so I am rather against CA being destroyed but thanks to those who have made plans for the future beach front property at the expense of 38 million American lives..many of which are children not to mention the military personal we have living here..and buried here. CA has the third largest rural area in the country and the largest population. We feed a lot of folks with our crops. We send way more $ to the federal government than we ever receive.. all while our our own schools are suffering attrition and our infrastructure is failing but we do have a new football stadium for my beloved 49ers ... I am not a fair weather fan..I'm forty niner faithful no matter how much they suck..the stadium though..it doesn't suck so..that's something and the food is good..actually good.

We are the sixth largest economy on the planet.

under normal circumstances if folks were thinking clearly, they would not push for CA to form its own country..(by the by..we would be ALLIES not enemies..we will defend our friends..trade and what not. But circumstances are not normal and now seems like the time for this to happen IF it were to ever happen. If we don't come together..I am unsure what the path to unity is..but this is a way to be together at peace ..allies as opposed to countrymen but you have to understand that Californians would still have a deep love for the US..it needn't be an acrimonious divorce..just a rewrite of how our two spaces odd dirt interact with one another.

Most of Ca hasn't weighed in on this issue at all but the petition is up and if it gets enough signs folks will start contacting folks and put boots to the ground to get it on the ballot.

Angst is not long sustainable though and bright new shines will distract the masses.

Walking Dead is 90 mins on Sunday..I'm excited.








Musicmystery -> RE: Is CalExit viable (11/12/2016 9:50:24 AM)

How's your military?




OsideGirl -> RE: Is CalExit viable (11/12/2016 10:05:15 AM)

It's not viable.

Once it is no longer a part of the United States - all the military would leave along with all of the defense contractors. Cities like San Diego would take a huge hit economically. A lot of tech businesses would leave rather than pay a tariff to export into the United States. (Think Apple) California gets a portion of it's water from other states. NFL and NBA would leave (NHL and MLB have out of country teams). Some airlines would pull out and those that offices here would remove them. Travel out of California would require a passport (possibly a Visa) and system to produce them. Currency, postal system, consumerism, etc etc.

They have no idea of the logistics.




tamaka -> RE: Is CalExit viable (11/12/2016 10:13:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl

It's not viable.

Once it is no longer a part of the United States - all the military would leave along with all of the defense contractors. Cities like San Diego would take a huge hit economically. A lot of tech businesses would leave rather than pay a tariff to export into the United States. (Think Apple) California gets a portion of it's water from other states. NFL and NBA would leave (NHL and MLB have out of country teams). Some airlines would pull out and those that offices here would remove them. Travel out of California would require a passport (possibly a Visa) and system to produce them. Currency, postal system, consumerism, etc etc.

They have no idea of the logistics.


They are passionate... if not intelligent.




BitaTruble -> RE: Is CalExit viable (11/12/2016 10:40:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

How's your military?

You do not hold the necessary security clearance in the country of CA to have access to that information. ;D No one does.

I would think something could be worked out in regard to what is already here..the largest federal military force in the country is in CA.

You weren't thinking about dropping a bomb on us were ya? :D

We don't want a coup and we aren't forming one. If the masses don't want this..it wont happen but let's face it..the kids don't always stay together just because the parents want the brothers and sisters to get along.

There is a lot of red in CA..not in the Silicon vallley..but a large part of the rural areas are red and Trump got a lot of votes here..this is a long shot by any stretch..but I promise that until there is something of a viable interest to be seen..the details are not so specific. We would use the same American dollars and such.. most stuff is going to stay pretty California fresh.

I am not qualified to answer questions but I can put you in touch with those who are too a point..if you are truly interested.

If you are looking for the adult prototype of an "idea" in its infancy..that's not going to happen. The blueprints are still being drawn..the house has yet to be built. The vision..murky..but I find the idea is interesting and I want to know more about it and, perhaps help..not sure if I want to help build it or kill it yet though.




OsideGirl -> RE: Is CalExit viable (11/12/2016 10:43:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka


quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl

It's not viable.

Once it is no longer a part of the United States - all the military would leave along with all of the defense contractors. Cities like San Diego would take a huge hit economically. A lot of tech businesses would leave rather than pay a tariff to export into the United States. (Think Apple) California gets a portion of it's water from other states. NFL and NBA would leave (NHL and MLB have out of country teams). Some airlines would pull out and those that offices here would remove them. Travel out of California would require a passport (possibly a Visa) and system to produce them. Currency, postal system, consumerism, etc etc.

They have no idea of the logistics.


They are passionate... if not intelligent.


As proven by the passing of Prop 57, where I think a large group of people didn't read the fine print, just the headline.




WickedsDesire -> RE: Is CalExit viable (11/12/2016 10:50:11 AM)

I think it is viable...as i have said many times I think he will be impeached...and strangely fascinated if this will occur before/or after he steps in the white house...he is so going to steal the silverwear.

No idea how states work at local level - Councils we have here.




SunDominant -> RE: Is CalExit viable (11/12/2016 11:01:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire

I think it is viable...as i have said many times I think he will be impeached...and strangely fascinated if this will occur before/or after he steps in the white house...he is so going to steal the silverwear.


I am suspicious of the exact opposite, and that is the Trump we have seen on the campaign trail was mostly a donned persona; he saw an underlying unhappiness and told the people what they wanted to hear exactly the way they wanted to hear it. Those people may have a serious case of buyers remorse when Trump turns out to be much more moderate on many issues than he has let on in the last 365 days.




WhoreMods -> RE: Is CalExit viable (11/12/2016 11:03:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SunDominant

While not receiving the blessing of law, they could still do it. Congress would never send troops into California to forcibly retain it in the Union. If they want to secede, I say more power to them.

Quite. It's not like anything was done to stop the Confederacy seceding is it?




SunDominant -> RE: Is CalExit viable (11/12/2016 11:06:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
Quite. It's not like anything was done to stop the Confederacy seceding is it?


Last week? Oh, you mean one hundred and fifty five years ago. [;)]




tamaka -> RE: Is CalExit viable (11/12/2016 11:11:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SunDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
Quite. It's not like anything was done to stop the Confederacy seceding is it?


Last week? Oh, you mean one hundred and fifty five years ago. [;)]


When you really come down to brass tacks... times haven't changed that much... believe me. ; )




Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.15625