It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Calexit: Should California be forced to remain part of the U.S. against the will of its people?

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 04:10 AM
link   
If the people of California decide in a referendum that they want to secede from the U.S., how should the rest of the country respond? If California is forced to stay in the union against the collective will of its people, would that be akin to holding the people of California as hostages or slaves?

Calexit looks like a long shot to me. The first steps are for both a ballot initiative and a referendum to be passed concerning the issue.


In the Spring of 2019, Californians will go to the polls in a historic vote to decide by referendum if California should exit the Union, a #Calexit vote.

You will have this historic opportunity because the Yes California Independence Campaign will qualify a citizen’s initiative for the 2018 ballot that if passed would call for a special election for Californians to vote for or against the independence of California from the United States.
SOURCE


Following those hurdles, it really gets difficult.


A member of the California federal delegation to Washington would propose an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allowing the State of California to withdraw from the Union. The Amendment would have to be approved by 2/3 of the House of Representatives and 2/3 of the Senate. If the Amendment passed it would be sent to the fifty state legislatures to be considered (to satisfy the "consent of the states" requirement in Texas v. White). It would need to be accepted by at least 38 of the 50 state legislatures to be adopted.

California could call for a convention of the states (which is currently being organized to tackle other constitutional amendments as we speak) and the Amendment granting California its independence would have to be approved by 2/3 of the delegates to this convention. If it passed, the Amendment would be sent to the fifty state legislatures to be considered and 38 of the 50 states would have to approve the measure in order for it to be adopted.
SOURCE


I think there is hope for Californians wanting Calexit. In my view it would be against the spirit of what America stands for to hold a group of people hostage against their will. I think that argument could win out and set California free.

How long that would take is an entirely different question.


The Twenty-seventh Amendment (Amendment XXVII) to the United States Constitution prohibits any law that increases or decreases the salary of members of Congress from taking effect until the start of the next set of terms of office for Representatives. It is the most recent amendment to be adopted, but one of the first proposed.

It was submitted by Congress to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789, along with eleven other proposed amendments. While ten of these twelve proposals were ratified in 1791 to become the Bill of Rights, what would become the Twenty-seventh Amendment and the proposed Congressional Apportionment Amendment did not get ratified by enough states for them to also come into force with the first ten amendments. The proposed congressional pay amendment was largely forgotten until 1982 when Gregory Watson researched it as a student at the University of Texas at Austin and began a new campaign for its ratification.[1] The amendment eventually became part of the United States Constitution on May 5, 1992, completing a record-setting ratification period of 202 years, 7 months, and 10 days.[2]
SOURCE


I don't think Californians could wait a couple of hundred years for their constitutional amendment to be ratified.

edit on 10-11-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 04:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion
Wasn't the general principle decided by the events of 1860-1865?



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 04:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

I sure hope so,throughout the years always heard southern and mid west complain about California,but growing up here,you can pretty much grow anything you can grow in the world in California,we also have the worlds largest oil reserve,so we could be like a small nation,have our own currency,no IRS,no Fed Reserve,little to no taxation to the people,only to foreign countrys,like the US



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 04:41 AM
link   
Won't be allowed to happen, it would create a slippery slope of states bowing out. Texas pops to mind rather quickly....



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 04:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

If the entire west coast sunk into the Pacific .... would that be so bad?

/ end of sarcasim




posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 04:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Of course they ought to be forced to remain...if the Governor or any other high level Politician is agitating against the election result purely for no other reason than they don't like the winner, they ought to be arrested for treason and thrown in jail.

They are advocating tyranny, and that doesn't wash with Westerners.

If they don't like elections or their results, they can always move to a country were the Government is appointed at the whim of a few, instead of electing their governments by the majority as we do here...China perhaps?

Otherwise they can grow the hell up and SHUT IT and accept democracy as they bloody well ought to...don't enter a race, competition, debate if they can't handle losing.

They're like whining immature children.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 04:55 AM
link   
its illegal lol. let them try. they have no army.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 04:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion
If the people of California decide in a referendum that they want to secede from the U.S., how should the rest of the country respond? If California is forced to stay in the union against the collective will of its people, would that be akin to holding the people of California as hostages or slaves?


Philosophically, absolutely. Just as Scotland and England should both have the option to withdraw from their union.

The United States is supposed to be exactly that - a union of states, not "a list of states owned by Washington". If a state decides that it no longer wants to be part of the union, they should have the freedom to leave. It might be a stupid and irrational decision (depending on the state, some are probably better placed to survive it than others) but it should be their decision to make.

The history and legal nature of the Union might have other things to say about it, of course.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

As a Scot who voted for independence I really, truly, from the bottom of my heart hope you get it. One thing though, Calexit? Surely Cexit is a far better name for it? Hang on, did I actually say that? I hate the word Brexit, it's lazy and sounds dumb. Ha ha how about Caldepedence?...



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: dantanna
its illegal lol. let them try. they have no army.


Oh no...what if they all link hands, hold a sit in and god forbid...start singing Kumbaya?

What then...hmmm?



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion




In my view it would be against the spirit of what America stands for to hold a group of people hostage against their will.


History would have to disagree with you, the Southern states tried that 160 years ago and were invaded.

If it were easy, Texas would have left long ago. Personally I could not care less if California stays or goes as long as they take their debt and liberals with them.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:12 AM
link   
Northern California has been trying to secede from the rest of the state and create the State of Jefferson, for a very long time, and we are getting no where. So, I dont see this happening.
And I believe the taxes collected off California is redistributed to the rest of the states, as needed. There is way too much money in California. They will never let her go.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cancerwarrior
History would have to disagree with you, the Southern states tried that 160 years ago and were invaded.


Nice of use of the cherry picking logical fallacy. You chose the worst example in U.S. history and you act like that proves me wrong.


originally posted by: dantanna
its illegal lol. let them try. they have no army.


Theoretically the processes below could make almost anything legal in the U.S.


A member of the California federal delegation to Washington would propose an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allowing the State of California to withdraw from the Union. The Amendment would have to be approved by 2/3 of the House of Representatives and 2/3 of the Senate. If the Amendment passed it would be sent to the fifty state legislatures to be considered (to satisfy the "consent of the states" requirement in Texas v. White). It would need to be accepted by at least 38 of the 50 state legislatures to be adopted.

California could call for a convention of the states (which is currently being organized to tackle other constitutional amendments as we speak) and the Amendment granting California its independence would have to be approved by 2/3 of the delegates to this convention. If it passed, the Amendment would be sent to the fifty state legislatures to be considered and 38 of the 50 states would have to approve the measure in order for it to be adopted.
SOURCE



originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: Profusion

Of course they ought to be forced to remain...if the Governor or any other high level Politician is agitating against the election result purely for no other reason than they don't like the winner, they ought to be arrested for treason and thrown in jail.


The process we're discussing here has nothing to do with the crime of treason in the U.S.


Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
SOURCE

edit on 10-11-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion




Nice of use of the cherry picking logical fallacy. You chose the worst example in U.S. history and you act like that proves me wrong.


No, I chose the only example in History that both answers your ridiculous question, and proves you wrong.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:58 AM
link   
There is an effort already underway to split California into I think 4 or 5 New States.

I think this would probably be the best course of action to provide better representation of the people there.

If that were to happen, you would probably just see San Francisco and Los Angeles trying to secede in their temper tantrum over Trump.
edit on 10-11-2016 by watchitburn because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 06:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cancerwarrior
a reply to: Profusion




Nice of use of the cherry picking logical fallacy. You chose the worst example in U.S. history and you act like that proves me wrong.


No, I chose the only example in History that both answers your ridiculous question, and proves you wrong.



Has either of the processes mentioned below been tried before in terms of a state seceding? Nothing has been proven until the processes have been tried.


A member of the California federal delegation to Washington would propose an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allowing the State of California to withdraw from the Union. The Amendment would have to be approved by 2/3 of the House of Representatives and 2/3 of the Senate. If the Amendment passed it would be sent to the fifty state legislatures to be considered (to satisfy the "consent of the states" requirement in Texas v. White). It would need to be accepted by at least 38 of the 50 state legislatures to be adopted.

California could call for a convention of the states (which is currently being organized to tackle other constitutional amendments as we speak) and the Amendment granting California its independence would have to be approved by 2/3 of the delegates to this convention. If it passed, the Amendment would be sent to the fifty state legislatures to be considered and 38 of the 50 states would have to approve the measure in order for it to be adopted.
SOURCE

edit on 10-11-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 06:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Mate, if your lawmakers and Politicians can call Julian Assange a 'Traitor', and he not even being a US citizen, i sure as hell can call an entire state attempting to subvert democracy 'treasonous'...

edit on 10 11 2016 by MysterX because: typo



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 06:23 AM
link   
a reply to: watchitburn

Just two states, Northern California and Southern Oregon want to form the State of Jefferson. They would like to remove themselves from the Blue portions of the States. We tend to be conservative and the Liberal ideology from the Southern Areas doesnt work for us. I live in N. California. Go Jefferson.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 06:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

California is unable to do this as it's unable to sustain itself without the help of the federal gov.

Both in resources, food, power etc.

There's no actual way for California to be independent and still have any kind of fiscal autonomy.

~Tenth



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 06:28 AM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

What about all the tech money, the tourism, the wine industry, the movie industry and all the rest of it?

Would they really not be able to sustain themselves fiscally?

Not that i agree they ought to get out of dodge, i could be and am open to being wrong, but i just doubt they'd fail for financial reasons, given they are quite wealthy as states go.



new topics




 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join