Quo bono?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/21/us/yes-california-calexit-marinelli-russia.html?src=twr&smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=1
Seems the Progressives are also close to Russia ;-(
I'm unconvinced.
Election of one shitty president isn't reason enough to secede, and US economic retaliation against Independent California Republic could force our industry leaders to migrate and cripple our economy. 45.8% of California land is owned by federal government (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf).
Not to mention the high unlikelihood of a constitutional amendment being approved by two-thirds of House and Senate, and accepted by 38 out of 50 states, making this whole endeavor a huge con, and a waste of money and time.
There is nothing in the Constitution about a state leaving the U.S., nor is there anything in the Constitution preventing a state from leaving the U.S.. This leaves it up to Congress to create a definition of the procedure. No Constitutional ammendment necessary. (yes I actually read it on a regular basis)
I was under the impression that leaving the U.S. followed the same procedure as a state wanting to join the U.S. - a presentation of arguments to Congress and then a vote by Congress.
An ammendment to the California Constitution??? Who cares? no really, who cares? We have proposals to ammend the California Constitution on every ballot... and just as many pass as those that fail
Texas tried it.
Quote from: Sorginak on February 23, 2017, 02:10:40 AM
Texas tried it.
They won't get far ... between Oklahoma and Mexico is like being between a rock and a hard place ;-) So hard to take a state, cut if off from the map, and motor it off into the Gulf.
I don't know about succession, but I think California should be divided into two states, North and South. There is nothing about Northern California that is anything like Southern California. The people are different, the geography is different, and the climate is different. When they made California, Congress got lazy and decided to make it one state, because it was easier.
There is a problem with San Francisco. Would that be North or South? Some people there might have a civil war over it, with families divided. That would not be a good thing.
Quote from: SGOS on February 23, 2017, 06:46:07 AM
I don't know about succession, but I think California should be divided into two states, North and South. There is nothing about Northern California that is anything like Southern California. The people are different, the geography is different, and the climate is different. When they made California, Congress got lazy and decided to make it one state, because it was easier.
There is a problem with San Francisco. Would that be North or South? Some people there might have a civil war over it, with families divided. That would not be a good thing.
Most people put the E-W dividing line at Bakersfield. Ever been to Bakersfield? So San Fran would be part of the NC ... North California ... because they don't want to go to thru customs to get to the vineyards.
I still think California's best influence would be to divide into several States.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 23, 2017, 07:37:44 AM
I still think California's best influence would be to divide into several States.
Yes, divide all D states, so that the D party can finally get a majority in the Galactic Senate ;-))
Quote from: Baruch on February 23, 2017, 12:40:38 PM
Yes, divide all D states, so that the D party can finally get a majority in the Galactic Senate ;-))
The Six California measure floated a while ago would not result in six D states, but in a mix of D and R.
Calexit (http://aynrkey.blogspot.com/2017/02/calexit.html)
There are pros and cons to a Calexit. The biggest result is a potential for further secession of other blue states without California to act as an anchor for them. New England and the Pacific NorthWest would be likely to go as well.
If we break up into individual counties, we can be city states, like ancient Greece. Souvlaki!
just like Israel and Palestine two state solution fighting over Jerusalem....we can have a N Ca and a S Ca and fight over San Fransisco
maybe better a NW SE divide south of Angeles Forest east to the border include everything from the 5fwy west up to Santa Rosa. Everything north of Angeles forest and east of the 99fwy after you get to Sacremento draw the line west to Santa Rosa
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on February 24, 2017, 07:24:58 AM
The Six California measure floated a while ago would not result in six D states, but in a mix of D and R.
Calexit (http://aynrkey.blogspot.com/2017/02/calexit.html)
There are pros and cons to a Calexit. The biggest result is a potential for further secession of other blue states without California to act as an anchor for them. New England and the Pacific NorthWest would be likely to go as well.
That is a very sensible idea. And may I add that the District Of Columbia just be remanded into Maryland (like the Virginia part was) and end all that fuss about it's "statehood"?
Quote from: Cavebear on February 26, 2017, 04:40:27 AM
That is a very sensible idea. And may I add that the District Of Columbia just be remanded into Maryland (like the Virginia part was) and end all that fuss about it's "statehood"?
The US used to despise South Africa under White rule. Now they want bantustans based on political affiliation. I am so glad I am not young, and won't live much longer. Oi!
Quote from: Baruch on February 26, 2017, 09:01:34 AM
The US used to despise South Africa under White rule. Now they want bantustans based on political affiliation. I am so glad I am not young, and won't live much longer. Oi!
It was Bantu land before colonialism. Why shouldn't it be their's again? I don't care abount their political affiliation.
And I have to say one thing to ALL of you - You have improved my typing! Not 100% but maybe 50%.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 26, 2017, 04:40:27 AM
That is a very sensible idea. And may I add that the District Of Columbia just be remanded into Maryland (like the Virginia part was) and end all that fuss about it's "statehood"
District of Columbia statehood is a stupid conversation unless somebody wants to make an ammendment to the part of the Constitution that says the capitol may not be a part of any state.
Quote from: fencerider on February 26, 2017, 12:59:54 PM
District of Columbia statehood is a stupid conversation unless somebody wants to make an ammendment to the part of the Constitution that says the capitol may not be a part of any state.
Ah and there you err in the local arguments. DC says the "federal district" can be defined down to almost nothing.
I say let the whole thing be resolved by remanding. DC as a a State is ludicrous.
Quote from: fencerider on February 23, 2017, 01:44:27 AM
There is nothing in the Constitution about a state leaving the U.S., nor is there anything in the Constitution preventing a state from leaving the U.S.. This leaves it up to Congress to create a definition of the procedure. No Constitutional ammendment necessary. (yes I actually read it on a regular basis)
I was under the impression that leaving the U.S. followed the same procedure as a state wanting to join the U.S. - a presentation of arguments to Congress and then a vote by Congress.
An ammendment to the California Constitution??? Who cares? no really, who cares? We have proposals to ammend the California Constitution on every ballot... and just as many pass as those that fail
You're right, there is no Constitutional instrument for State leaving Union, but there
is for State joining Union (US Constitution. Art. VI. Sec. 3). An amendment would be necessary to create Constitutional instrument for leaving Union -- a highly unlikely endeavor.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 26, 2017, 10:47:05 AM
And I have to say one thing to ALL of you - You have improved my typing! Not 100% but maybe 50%.
Hey, if you practice enough you may get to Carnegie Hall!
Statehood for D.C.
I think Puerto Rico should have statehood - but what do I know?
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 01, 2017, 05:43:24 PM
I think Puerto Rico should have statehood - but what do I know?
Since Puerto Rico is already bankrupt, we could add it to California, with no ill effect ;-)
Quote from: Cavebear on February 26, 2017, 01:05:50 PM
Ah and there you err in the local arguments. DC says the "federal district" can be defined down to almost nothing.
I say let the whole thing be resolved by remanding. DC as a a State is ludicrous.
Have you been to Rhode Island?
Quote from: Baruch on March 01, 2017, 08:16:18 PM
Have you been to Rhode Island?
Lots bigger than DC.