'Calexit' organizers can now start collecting signatures to get California secession on the ballot

[lpetrich]

It must be conceded that secession is a big loose end in the US's Constitution. Its original authors never put any provisions for it, and none of its amenders ever did so either. The closest thing to a settlement of this issue has been the Civil War, and that was resolved with force.

But I think that if enough politicians from enough states agreed on it, then secession will be completely feasible.

I checked some statistics, and California is approximately comparable to Canada.
Population: 39 million vs. 35 million
Gross domestic product: 2.448 trillion USD vs. 1.827 trillion USD

So I think that California is potentially viable as a separate nation.

I doubt that most other states are, however, though blocs of them may be viable, blocs like New England or the Pacific Northwest or even the ex-Confederacy.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

But states like California do not have laws that have legalized illegal immigration so there is no conflict between state and federal law. And thus, local LEOs should accommodate requests by feds for immigration holds.

My point wasn't that there was conflict between the laws, but rather, it was that I'm not sure that local law enforcement would oblige in all other cases.
That aside, there are in some cities local dispositions that tell law enforcement officers not to cooperate with federal authorities on the matters at hand (i.e., illegal immigration), at least in common circumstances (with some exceptions perhaps for national security).
Local police officers will follow their orders, else they'll get fired. Do you think they have a legal obligation to disregard their orders and cooperate anyway?

Primarily a moral/philosophical claim. We can't have a country without controlling our borders and immigration.
The legal issues are murky at best, especially since different justices can interpret the constitution in diametrically opposing ways on many issues.

I see. I was talking about the law, not about morality.
So, I guess a better question would be: Do you think they have a moral obligation to disregard their orders and cooperate anyway, even if they get fired for disobedience?

 

[Elixir]

Look at the bright side, Derec - <regrettable comment>

I apologize - that was just mean and petty.
You finally got my goat. Won't happen again.

 

[dismal]

The most rational way to look at this would be it would take the same process it took to admit a state. Which i think is just an act of congress signed into law by the president.

Plus the agreement of the state in question?

If so, perhaps, though I'm not sure the SCOTUS would agree. Still, the consent of California appears very unlikely. Moreover, even if it happened, I think it's very unlikely that Congress would agree. I have no clue whether Trump would.

It doesn't look like admission requires approval within the territory in question, so perhaps it's arguable disadmission would not either.

However, I would assume in this case that California has voted for it and trump is not just voting them off the island. "California, you're fired"".

 

[Harry Bosch]

Plus the agreement of the state in question?

If so, perhaps, though I'm not sure the SCOTUS would agree. Still, the consent of California appears very unlikely. Moreover, even if it happened, I think it's very unlikely that Congress would agree. I have no clue whether Trump would.

It doesn't look like admission requires approval within the territory in question, so perhaps it's arguable disadmission would not either.

However, I would assume in this case that California has voted for it and trump is not just voting them off the island. "California, you're fired"".

I'm sorry to tell you this but the blue states are far better off than the red. California generates far more in fed tax per capita than the red states per capita. You need us more than we need you.

 

[bilby]

But states like California do not have laws that have legalized illegal immigration so there is no conflict between state and federal law. And thus, local LEOs should accommodate requests by feds for immigration holds.

Are you making a moral claim, or a legal claim?
I was talking about the law, broadly speaking (including the constitution).

Primarily a moral/philosophical claim. We can't have a country without controlling our borders and immigration.
The legal issues are murky at best, especially since different justices can interpret the constitution in diametrically opposing ways on many issues.

That's absurd. Countries pre-date border and immigration controls by many centuries. Before WWI, it was almost unheard of to control who entered or left a country - governments cared only about goods and money crossing their borders, not people. And they had only the most sketchy control over goods and money.

Borders merely defined the jurisdictional boundaries of various rulers. But countries persisted despite zero immigration control. This is a new thing - it's existed for less than a century in most places. It's not a law of nature.

Before 1914, if you had suggested to a typical American that he might need a passport in order to travel the the UK, he would have seen the very idea as a monstrous imposition on his freedom. Passports were diplomatic credentials that caused customs men to become obsequious. They were not required in order to travel.

If an Englishman wanted to go to Germany in the 1890s, he just bought a ticket and went.

But that freedom has vanished - War does more permanent damage than some people realise - and now you don't even realise that your freedom is being infringed. Indeed, you characterise those who exercise their freedom as 'illegals'. That's so sad.

 

[dismal]

It doesn't look like admission requires approval within the territory in question, so perhaps it's arguable disadmission would not either.

However, I would assume in this case that California has voted for it and trump is not just voting them off the island. "California, you're fired"".

I'm sorry to tell you this but the blue states are far better off than the red. California generates far more in fed tax per capita than the red states per capita. You need us more than we need you.

I support the freedom of self determination. I'm not going to force California to remain part of the country so they can pay taxes.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I'm sorry to tell you this but the blue states are far better off than the red. California generates far more in fed tax per capita than the red states per capita. You need us more than we need you.

I support the freedom of self determination. I'm not going to force California to remain part of the country so they can pay taxes.

I hate to say it, but I'm starting to think that maybe some of the blue states should consider leaving. The trade wars that are coming will greatly affect the west coast, and most likely the east coast. The coming federal deficit will be an incredible burden on the children of today. I really don't want to be part of the coming crazy religious wars that are coming under Trump. I really don't think that I'm going to like living in the coming crazy Trump world. I don't like all the crazy high school drama queen stuff. Maybe California, Oregon, and Washington would be better off on our own??

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It doesn't look like admission requires approval within the territory in question, so perhaps it's arguable disadmission would not either.

If admission and disadmission does not require approval, then consider then the following cases:

1. Congress + POTUS kick California out. Then, they come up with two territories that make up the present territory of California, say California 1 and California 2, and admit them both.
This would effectively imply that

2. Congress + POTUS kick California + Arizona out, and then admit Californizona, made up of the territories of the two.

This would seem to effectively neutralize the following: "...; 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."

Another case: Congress + POTUS kick states 1, 2, and 3 out, then amend the constitution. The amendment is approved by 75% of the other states, then 1, 2, and 3 are accepted back. That circumvents the procedure for constitutional amendments.

Granted, those scenarios aren't going to happen in practice, but for that matter, in practice Congress + POTUS wouldn't attempt kick a state out without their approval (Trump alone might - who knows? - but not with Congress), so if we're talking about realistic scenarios, none of them are.
On the other hand, if we're talking about what's constitutionally possible, it seems to me that the constitution prevents that sort of behavior by Congress + POTUS. I guess you could argue that kicking states out require consent of the states when otherwise a constitutional disposition would be circumvented or something like that, but it seems to be a weak argument to me.

That aside, I think there are other reasons why kicking states out would require acceptance by the states (and also arguably accepting them, as long as there already is a stable institutional organization in the state-to-be).

However, I would assume in this case that California has voted for it and trump is not just voting them off the island. "California, you're fired"".

Right, though that seems very improbable to me.
That aside, California could probably do pretty well on its own. In fact, it could save a lot of money in military stuff (wars, a very large military, etc.), since they're not at risk of being invaded, bombed, etc. They wouldn't need to invest much to prevent a Mexican attack - and Mexico wouldn't attack, anyway -, and we're assuming the US wouldn't attack, since this would be a divorce by mutual agreement.

 

[credoconsolans]

That aside, California could probably do pretty well on its own. In fact, it could save a lot of money in military stuff (wars, a very large military, etc.), since they're not at risk of being invaded, bombed, etc. They wouldn't need to invest much to prevent a Mexican attack - and Mexico wouldn't attack, anyway -, and we're assuming the US wouldn't attack, since this would be a divorce by mutual agreement.

You can see Russia from Alaska apparently. Just a quick boat ride down from the Bering Sea.

And since der Trump seems to have no problems reneging on treaties, who's to say he won't decide to invade after all?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

That aside, California could probably do pretty well on its own. In fact, it could save a lot of money in military stuff (wars, a very large military, etc.), since they're not at risk of being invaded, bombed, etc. They wouldn't need to invest much to prevent a Mexican attack - and Mexico wouldn't attack, anyway -, and we're assuming the US wouldn't attack, since this would be a divorce by mutual agreement.

You can see Russia from Alaska apparently. Just a quick boat ride down from the Bering Sea.

And since der Trump seems to have no problems reneging on treaties, who's to say he won't decide to invade after all?

Realistically, California will not leave. I'm considering the hypothetical scenario.
As for Russia, there is no way they would be able to invade California, since:

1. It would probably be a NATO member.
2. In any event, the US would not let that happen (Trump is not the only person calling the shots).
3. Russia's capability to invade by sea is very limited. California could buy some pretty silent subs (e.g., Gotland class), and that could sink pretty much any Russian surface ship, at a reasonably low cost.
4. Russia has no excuse to invade. Those are needed for their domestic audiences.
5. Mexico is not much farther way, and they won't invade, either.
6. At any rate, Canada is closer, and is not at risk of being invaded, even though their military budget is 1% of their GDP (vs. 3.3% in the case of the US). Even if it spent as much as 1%, that would be considerably less than America's expenditure, in proportion to their GDP.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Succession from the union has been illegal since the end of the civil war. Granted, the idea that succession can be 'illegal' when the succeeding power doesn't recognize your authority is pretty laughable.

Seceding from the British Empire was illegal too, but it's the foundation of your country.

I'm all in favour of the US breaking up into smaller parts in order to lesson the impact of it doing things like electing Donald Trump.

Would it then reunite the next time the Democrats with the election?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You can see Russia from Alaska apparently. Just a quick boat ride down from the Bering Sea.

And since der Trump seems to have no problems reneging on treaties, who's to say he won't decide to invade after all?

Realistically, California will not leave. I'm considering the hypothetical scenario.
As for Russia, there is no way they would be able to invade California, since:

1. It would probably be a NATO member.
2. In any event, the US would not let that happen (Trump is not the only person calling the shots).
3. Russia's capability to invade by sea is very limited. California could buy some pretty silent subs (e.g., Gotland class), and that could sink pretty much any Russian surface ship, at a reasonably low cost.
4. Russia has no excuse to invade. Those are needed for their domestic audiences.
5. Mexico is not much farther way, and they won't invade, either.
6. At any rate, Canada is closer, and is not at risk of being invaded, even though their military budget is 1% of their GDP (vs. 3.3% in the case of the US). Even if it spent as much as 1%, that would be considerably less than America's expenditure, in proportion to their GDP.

Canada only risks invasion by the US, who has so much stronger a military that Canada doesn't bother. Seriously, who else would invade Canada? Nobody. It has no enemies.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Does Trump have the power to kick states out of the union?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Seceding from the British Empire was illegal too, but it's the foundation of your country.

I'm all in favour of the US breaking up into smaller parts in order to lesson the impact of it doing things like electing Donald Trump.

Would it then reunite the next time the Democrats with the election?

You are assuming that it is possible for the dems to win another election. What would that take? We won by 3 million votes last time, but lost the contest. What would it take? Would we have to win by 6 million votes? The reps have fixed the house through gerrymandering. Very difficult to get a fair shake in the house. Finally, you are also assuming that Trump would give up power if he lost. Not so sure about that. He could just claim that the vote was illegitimate due to "illegal voters". And then he stays on.

 

[iolo]

Would it then reunite the next time the Democrats with the election?

You are assuming that it is possible for the dems to win another election. What would that take? We won by 3 million votes last time, but lost the contest. What would it take? Would we have to win by 6 million votes? The reps have fixed the house through gerrymandering. Very difficult to get a fair shake in the house. Finally, you are also assuming that Trump would give up power if he lost. Not so sure about that. He could just claim that the vote was illegitimate due to "illegal voters". And then he stays on.

And where is the bloody NRA? There's a useless organisation if you like!

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Realistically, California will not leave. I'm considering the hypothetical scenario.
As for Russia, there is no way they would be able to invade California, since:

1. It would probably be a NATO member.
2. In any event, the US would not let that happen (Trump is not the only person calling the shots).
3. Russia's capability to invade by sea is very limited. California could buy some pretty silent subs (e.g., Gotland class), and that could sink pretty much any Russian surface ship, at a reasonably low cost.
4. Russia has no excuse to invade. Those are needed for their domestic audiences.
5. Mexico is not much farther way, and they won't invade, either.
6. At any rate, Canada is closer, and is not at risk of being invaded, even though their military budget is 1% of their GDP (vs. 3.3% in the case of the US). Even if it spent as much as 1%, that would be considerably less than America's expenditure, in proportion to their GDP.

Canada only risks invasion by the US, who has so much stronger a military that Canada doesn't bother. Seriously, who else would invade Canada? Nobody. It has no enemies.

That's one of my points, there is no no-negligible risk of Russia invading Canada, either. California very probably wouldn't need to spend more on defense than Canada - and probably less, since there is no Arctic stuff to fight over.

- - - Updated - - -

Does Trump have the power to kick states out of the union?

No.

 

[credoconsolans]

You can see Russia from Alaska apparently. Just a quick boat ride down from the Bering Sea.

And since der Trump seems to have no problems reneging on treaties, who's to say he won't decide to invade after all?

Realistically, California will not leave. I'm considering the hypothetical scenario.

Of course they're not. It's all hot air, just like whenever Texas politicos start blustering.

As for Russia, there is no way they would be able to invade California, since:

1. It would probably be a NATO member.

Not if they get there before the Californians sign a treaty.

2. In any event, the US would not let that happen (Trump is not the only person calling the shots).

Why not? California by seceding says it has no wish to be part of the US but we should rescue them whenever they cry for help?

3. Russia's capability to invade by sea is very limited. California could buy some pretty silent subs (e.g., Gotland class), and that could sink pretty much any Russian surface ship, at a reasonably low cost.

Russia still has some subs capable of launching nukes. That's all it needs.

4. Russia has no excuse to invade. Those are needed for their domestic audiences.

Historically, Russia has been to California before, trading. Now California is one of the biggest economies in the world. They have not reason to NOT want to invade and take it over.

5. Mexico is not much farther way, and they won't invade, either.

Agree. Mexico has sat out the last few major wars.

6. At any rate, Canada is closer, and is not at risk of being invaded, even though their military budget is 1% of their GDP (vs. 3.3% in the case of the US). Even if it spent as much as 1%, that would be considerably less than America's expenditure, in proportion to their GDP.

Canada's economy - while just as big as California's - requires more boots on the ground to invade or colonize. California is basically Canada in a much smaller footprint.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Also, Wayne Gretzky lives in California right now, so the place is 99% more Canadian than Canada actually is at the moment.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Not if they get there before the Californians sign a treaty.

California would probably be a NATO member from starters, but in any case, at least it would have a defense treaty with the US, given that there are American military bases that would remain in California.
In fact, part of the American strategic defenses (including ICBMs, testing facilities, etc.), large military bases, etc., are in California (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandenberg_Air_Force_Base , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_and_Missile_Systems_Center , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/61st_Air_Base_Group ; http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=38356, etc., that's apart from ICBM launch sites) . The US would want to leave them there (very expensive to move, reduces US capabilities while being moved, etc.), and for that they'd need a treaty.
Moreover, even if they wanted to eventually move them, that would take years - more than enough to join NATO, assuming California weren't a NATO member yet.
Additionally, a considerable portion of the US military industry is in California (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman , http://www.sandiegobusiness.org/industry/defense, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/03/business/la-fi-made-in-california-shipyard-20110703 ).

Why not? California by seceding says it has no wish to be part of the US but we should rescue them whenever they cry for help?

Because the US would not want a Russian invasion on their border, for a number of reasons:
a. Economically, it would be pretty bad for the US as well, given the economic ties between California and other states.
b. Strategically, it would be a serious threat, limiting US ability to put pressure on Russia elsewhere. Additionally, there are technologies (including a lot of military tech and even nuclear weapons tech, and some of the nukes themselves) that America would not allow to fall in Russian hands.
c. An invasion would also be a public humiliation, pretty bad for the public image of the US.
d. Plenty of American citizens live in California, and that would remain the case.

And so on. I mean, it should be pretty obvious that Russia would not invade California.

Russia still has some subs capable of launching nukes. That's all it needs.

I was not talking about a nuclear attack. Russia would not risk that. But if you're talking about that, why not attack other countries around the world, with nukes, and make them all surrender? Size and distance are not a problem, nukes go where they are sent.

Historically, Russia has been to California before, trading. Now California is one of the biggest economies in the world. They have not reason to NOT want to invade and take it over.

That is no viable excuse domestically. Take a look at their previous excuses, like alleged attacks from Ukraine, or the historic connection to Crimea, or the invitation of Assad's government and the fight against terrorists.
That aside, if Russia were to nuke California and then invade what's left, it would not be one of the biggest economies in the world. It would be wrecked. The nukes would do a lot of damage. Hollywood would simply run for cover, and move to NY or Canada. Silicon Valley would also run (it's not as if they would be based on Russia after an invasion), and so on.

Agree. Mexico has sat out the last few major wars.

But Russia does not attempt to invade Mexico.

Canada's economy - while just as big as California's - requires more boots on the ground to invade or colonize. California is basically Canada in a much smaller footprint.

Canada is closer to the Russia, but in any case, you're apparently talking about nuking them in order to make them surrender. That doesn't depend on the size of the territory.
By the way, Mexico's economy is also pretty big (bigger or smaller than Canada's depending on how you measure it), so why not Mexico? Too big as well? But it's not a problem for nukes.
More generally, if you're talking about a nuclear attack, there is plenty of targets that may not have such a big economy, but do have something of value. Why not, say, Singapore (threatening them with nukes)?