Calexit backers can begin collecting signatures to qualify for 2018 ballot

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Only 1 in 3 Californians support leaving.

Versus almost all southerners still wanting to leave :I have a compromise. we go back to the way it used to be and just be a confederation of countries unto ourselves with a common goal of defense and infrastructure.

a reply to: yuppa

the way it used to be

The way it is supposed to be.

a reply to: yuppa

no thanks...

a reply to: yuppa

I have strong antifederalist views, so consider this through that prism:

Practically speaking, to defederalize our nation would create atrocities. At least in the near term. Certainly, the standard of living would be very low for much of the land locked portion. And im not sure I want to see states like Wyoming, Montana, or the Dakotas literally raped to help prop up their miniscule economies?

Do we want to see the Appalachians and Cascades turned into chains of strip mines so that Kentucky, West VA, and Arkansas can balance their budgets?

Im not thinking decentralization is a good move for us. Not now, anyway.

Getting a measure or proposal on a ballot for a vote means nothing with regards to the legal processes required to carry them out if approved of by voter majority. The US is a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

a reply to: MrSensible

Thing you have to realize is those areas are republican and if California does decide to leave the Union, California will break up.

a reply to: tkwasny

Yeah, it'd have to be ratified by the other states.

Or, alternately, they'd have to win a civil war.

The US is "blood in, blood out".

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Bigfatfurry,

I find myself often starring your posts regardless whether I agree with them or not…
They are thoughtful, consistent, and come from a place of high minded egalitarianism...

No point post other than to say it's people like you that bring me to this site...

Plus ur avatar rules...and ur a fellow Texan

-Chris

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: tkwasny

Yeah, it'd have to be ratified by the other states.

Or, alternately, they'd have to win a civil war.

The US is "blood in, blood out".

Or a supreme court decision rendering the amendment crap because lincoln broke the law when it was written and passed without a vote with southern states included after the war.

When I think of California I can't help but consider how the cost of living there isn't high enough. I mean, housing costs alone could definitely stand to come up some. It's not like people are living in shipping containers there or anything...

Didn't they spend a while considering breaking down into five smaller states not too long ago because they were failing financially as one state? Doesn't sound like a good idea to go it alone to me.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The more I read of your viewpoints, the more I wish you would write a weekly "state of the union" essay and publish it on ATS. You are one of the few voices I have read here that regularly and clearly communicates a view of events that is understandable to both the left and the right. The people of the United States need to understand one another and you are amply able to fill that role. Thank you for always writing such thoughtful honest comments that transcend the divide.

a reply to: yuppa

That would be because the southern states left the union... and lost.

The US Supreme Court ruling in Texas vs. White (1869) held unilateral secession unconstitutional, while commenting that revolution or consent of the States could lead to a successful secession.

The groups leading California's secession movement already stated they do not support a violent separation, essentially leaving them with the needed consent of not only Californians, but the remainder of the country as well.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: yuppa

That would be because the southern states left the union... and lost.

The US Supreme Court ruling in Texas vs. White (1869) held unilateral secession unconstitutional, while commenting that revolution or consent of the States could lead to a successful secession.

The groups leading California's secession movement already stated they do not support a violent separation, essentially leaving them with the needed consent of not only Californians, but the remainder of the country as well.

The constitution dont allow for them to vote on keeping a state back then though until after the war a few years. they had representation but didnt get a vote. Even if they tried to leave it was against constitutional law to ignore them when they voted.

a reply to: Christosterone

No farms will exist after the water is shut off.