Posted on 08/13/2017 9:34:51 PM PDT by Mafe
Any statistician or economist will tell you there is a huge world of difference between the improbable and the impossible. Brexit and the Trump presidency were both thought to be impossible, but they were proven to simply have been improbable.
And whenever I see an article about the move for California to secede from the United States (the so-called “Cal-exit”), the more I think that a vote to split is inevitable rather than improbable. As a member of the California Freedom Coalition recently told the Sacramento Bee, collecting signatures for the 2018 ballot, “We feel like this current initiative is more feasible and will hold up more to scrutiny and legal challenges.”
It is very easy to get an initiative on the ballot in California, so easy the left-leaning New Republic called it “a joke.” California made Arnold Schwarzenegger its governor. Twice. One might say passage of a secession referendum–even secession itself–might be improbable, rather than impossible, too.
(Excerpt) Read more at theamericanconservative.com ...
Every piece of legislation passed by Congress and signed by President Lincoln that dealt with the confederacy as “states of the union in rebellion” and not as a separate nation made that point: ie. Instituting a draft, blockade of southern ports, expelling southern states’ representatives and senators and replacing them with new members of Congress who were loyal to the Union, et cetera.
Is there a specific law that says states can’t secede? No, but case law has the same force as legislative law.
“If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.”— Justice Antonin Scalia
California can’t afford what it’s doing.
The only thing keeping it afloat is the Federal government - who is maxing out the credit cards to pay for California.
If California leaves: 1) taxes will SKYROCKET in California and 2) California will STILL GO BROKE.
There’s not enough of a tax base in California to support the Socialist state its pushing.
Even more of a reason to separate from that f-ed up state.
oh contraine mon ami - The Supreme Court ruled that succession is allowed with ‘the consent of the states’
I am thinking that the 2/3s of state legislatures controlled by Repubs will gladly consent to CALexit
so - Washington still gets to hold title to the Federal Building on Whilshire Blvd under CALexit.
Sure going to be a funny scenario with it being empty.
From the majority opinion in Texas v White: “The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to “be perpetual.” And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained “to form a more perfect Union.” It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?”
In any event, you would need 34 legislatures and governors. Republicans currently control 32 state legislatures, Democrats control 14, 3 are split or tied and 1 (Nebraska) has one House which is conservative. Republicans control 33 Governorships, Democrats 16 and 1 governor is an independent.
There is no constitutional provision for voting to allow a state to secede but I suppose a constitutional convention could amend the constitution to accomplish that.
But I think you know where I am going with this, right?
Nothing was done explicitly through legislation. Nothing was done to amend the Constitution.
Calling this issue settled from a constitutional perspective is like calling Dredd Scott v. Sanders settled constitutionally speaking.
At best, it is wishful thinking.
Are you familiar with the legal concept of “stare decisis?” When a Supreme Court ruling has stood as precedent for 148 years it is very unlikely to be overturned. Dred Scott was case law for only 9 years until the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (and then the 14th Amendment in 1868) rendered it moot.
Certainly Congress has the power to pass legislation that would permit secession of a state but I see that as highly unlikely. In the current Senate, such legislation would be filibustered into oblivion.
State of Jefferson will secede from them, rejoin the Union and the People’s Republik of Kalifornia will not be able to affor the water bill.
There are currently 32 military facilities in California. The Base Closure Commission (BRAC) already shut down the non-essential ones. In San Diego County alone there are 6 major Navy and Marine facilities, There are 112,000 active duty servcemembers in San Diego County and 120,000 military family members.
Some economic figures for the military presence in San Diego:
$24.8 billion in direct military spending — $7,700 for each resident of San Diego County
57 Navy/Coast Guard ships are based in San Diego, and that will grow to 84 by 2023.
Jobs created by defense spending include engineering, food services, retail sales, health care, education, real estate, shipbuilding and construction
Each aircraft carrier based in San Diego generates $700 million for the local economy.
Personally, I was never convinced that the commission was that well insulated from political influence nor that they eliminated all the non-essential bases.
One difference, of course, is that POTUS Trump and Brexit were the result of a vote. Calexit isn't.
I have another alternative: martial law and military occupation, ALA Germany and Japan. That ought to be long enough to root out the corrupt ideology that caused them issue.
Take a pill.
I just recounted and there are 47 military installations in California. The state with the second most bases is Texas with 28.
http://www.militarybases.us/by-state/
I’d base it on their economic weight, critical military infrastructure and of course some spite. Might cut them some slack if we retain the mineral rights ;-)
texas v white - requires consent of the states
thanks for playing. better luck next time
The court’s ruling in Texas v White is “Texas (and the rest of the Confederacy) never left the Union during the Civil War, because a state cannot unilaterally secede from the United States.
Treasury bond sales by Texas during the war were invalid, and the bonds were therefore still owned by the post-war state.”
California has not asked to secede and no other state has said that it would approve such a move.
But thanks for trying! :-)
you missed the part in Texas where it states ‘consent of the states’
succession is very possible and validated by Texas;
You’re talking about “dicta.” That was not a part of the holding in Texas v White.
The exact paragraph from the majority opinion that you are referring to says: “When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.”
Dicta: “Opinions of judges that do not embody the resolution or determination of the specific case before the court. Expressions in a court’s opinion that go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent.”
Holding: “Holdings, or ‘ratio decidendi’ (Latin for “the rationale for the decision), are those parts of a court’s opinion that are binding on lower courts and later courts.”
But don’t take my word for it. Here’s a link to the Texas V White Opinion, click on “opinion” to skip the syllabus.
Oops, I clicked before I added the link:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/74/700#writing-USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.