NationStates Jolt Archive

California independent


Many Californian people dream about it.

I’m wondering about the path they have to follow to achieve this.

Can they do it legally?

Also would the rest of USA accept this? Would they send the army?

Or would it be a start for other states to do the same?

Is it not a good idea for the safety of the world that very big countries should be divided anyway?

Um... they can't. The question on if states can break from the union was settled very well during the Civil War. The answer is no.

Besides the obvious fact that the total number of people who would wish for Californian secession is so small as to be an insignificant, it's a matter that has been decided to be firmly illegal. It is illegal for a single state, or a group of states, to attempt to dissolve the Constitution of the Union unilaterally.

Besides the obvious fact that the total number of people who would wish for Californian secession is so small as to be an insignificant, it's a matter that has been decided to be firmly illegal. It is illegal for a single state, or a group of states, to attempt to dissolve the Constitution of the Union unilaterally.

What if all states agreed to separate into smaller groupings though? Is that legal?

There is not significant group within California that wants independence. In fact what may happen is that it is broke up into smaller states. There was a movement years back that was seeking a split. But the notion of the state separating from the US is a pipe dream at best.

What if all states agreed to separate into smaller groupings though? Is that legal?
Well, technically speaking, the states could call a constitutional convention and re-write the constitution, splitting the union up should they fully adopt said new constitution, sure.

Well, technically speaking, the states could call a constitutional convention and re-write the constitution, splitting the union up should they fully adopt said new constitution, sure.

Well, okay then.

What if some states--like, say, California, Oregon, Washington...maybe Idaho and New Mexico...--wanted to split off from the rest of the U.S. and the rest of the U.S. states decided that was okay? Would THAT also be legal?

In essence, I'm wondering if it's the splitting apart or the fact that they decide to do it when the others don't want them to is the part that makes it illegal.

Well, apart from the idiocy that came from the Civil War, it's not technically illegal for states that were'nt part of the Confederate States of America to secede.

There's nothing in the Constitution that says they can't do it either.


Personally I would like to see some of the Secessionist movements come into fruition, not because I don't like the states, but because it would be interesting.


Personally I consider it a fundamental right of the states to be able to unilaterally secede should a super/hyper majority of their population and legislature want to.

Well, okay then.

What if some states--like, say, California, Oregon, Washington...maybe Idaho and New Mexico...--wanted to split off from the rest of the U.S. and the rest of the U.S. states decided that was okay? Would THAT also be legal?

In essence, I'm wondering if it's the splitting apart or the fact that they decide to do it when the others don't want them to is the part that makes it illegal.
In a word, no. The Constitution does not provide for the the splinting of the union. So in order for it to be legal under the Constitution, you'd either have to have an amendment passed (Which would be hard to see Congress passing an amendment like that) or have the states call a constitutional convention and rewrite the Constitution.

Now, IF said states did want to go and the rest of the US let them, the reality would be that said states are now no longer part of the US, but it wouldn't be legal.

In a word, no. The Constitution does not provide for the the splinting of the union. So in order for it to be legal under the Constitution, you'd either have to have an amendment passed (Which would be hard to see Congress passing an amendment like that) or have the states call a constitutional convention and rewrite the Constitution.

Now, IF said states did want to go and the rest of the US let them, the reality would be that said states are now no longer part of the US, but it wouldn't be legal.

Okay then. That settles that.

I can't see a situation where we'd let anyone go anyway. Every state contributes to the whole in some crucial way, and even those you might think wouldn't, like, say, Kansas, can't be gotten rid of anyway because then we'd have a foreign nation surrounded by us and tensions would shoot through the roof.

What if all states agreed to separate into smaller groupings though? Is that legal?

It would require a Constitutional convention, but, yes, it would be legal if the proper forms were followed.

Ok, legally it's difficult.

What if they just cry out their independence? Would USA attack them? Is that wise? I assume that California isn't like Belgium. :p

QUICK QUESTION!

Why do you feel the need to type in huge fucking letters for your first line? It's quite obnoxious.

California independent


Many Californian people dream about it.

I’m wondering about the path they have to follow to achieve this.

Can they do it legally?

No they can't.

Also would the rest of USA accept this? Would they send the army?

1) Some will
2) Yes

Or would it be a start for other states to do the same?

Nope!

Is it not a good idea for the safety of the world that very big countries should be divided anyway?

Double edge sword. However, no.

In a word, no. The Constitution does not provide for the the splinting of the union. So in order for it to be legal under the Constitution, you'd either have to have an amendment passed (Which would be hard to see Congress passing an amendment like that)

....

Congress doesn't pass amendments...they may propose the amendment, but it is up to 3/4 of the state legislatures to ratify it.

If they were independant they would get no federal suport whatsoever. No millitary defence, no money, no power. So it would be stupid to do so.

These are necessary for what reason?

Would you want to share a border with the US without an army of your own?

If they were independant they would get no federal suport whatsoever. No millitary defence, no money, no power. So it would be stupid to do so.

These are necessary for what reason?

That makes them all foreign films, right?

Um... they can't. The question on if states can break from the union was settled very well during the Civil War. The answer is no.

so? unless you are prepared to bomb san diego over it, what other recourse do you have besides letting them go?

Would you want to share a border with the US without an army of your own?

It's a bit hard to claim I have weapons of mass destruction in that scenario I suppose

If they were independant they would get no federal suport whatsoever. No millitary defence, no money, no power. So it would be stupid to do so.

Actually, California loses money by being in the US.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html

so? unless you are prepared to bomb san diego over it, what other recourse do you have besides letting them go?

San Diego? The place with all the gay people?

San Diego? The place with all the gay people?

i think that's San Francisco.

San Diego? The place with all the gay people?

no. but you'd have to occupy san fran with tanks too if you were serious about treating the secession as 'illegal', so it's all the same.

I would definitely support the state of my birth seceding from the Union. I only hope that in our high-tech information age, that any attempt by the Feds to brutally suppress such a movement would be broadcast all over the world and increase the legitimacy of the idea of secession.

But would it be against the Constitution? Some would say yes. Do I honestly care what some glorified piece of paper says on the issue? No.

If California secedes we'll nuke the tectonic plates and have it slide into the Pacific.

But would it be against the Constitution? Some would say yes. Do I honestly care what some glorified piece of paper says on the issue? No.

exactly. the point of secession is that they would no longer be party to the constitution. so the complaint "but that's against the constitution" seems to be at best meaningless, and to fundamentally miss the point.

"we're independent"
"no you aren't, that's not allowed by the constitution"
"conveniently, we are no longer bound by the constitution, what with the seceding and all"
"well, i don't like it"
"too bad"

If California secedes we'll nuke the tectonic plates and have it slide into the Pacific.

Yeah...that's not how that works.

Yeah...that's not how that works.

Shhh.

Of course that is how it works.

Yeah...that's not how that works.

maybe you haven't been applying enough nukes

no. but you'd have to occupy san fran with tanks too if you were serious about treating the secession as 'illegal', so it's all the same.

*shrug* Wouldn't be hard to vilify then.

exactly. the point of secession is that they would no longer be party to the constitution. so the complaint "but that's against the constitution" seems to be at best meaningless, and to fundamentally miss the point.

"we're independent"
"no you aren't, that's not allowed by the constitution"
"conveniently, we are no longer bound by the constitution, what with the seceding and all"
"well, i don't like it"
"too bad"

The silliest part is that so many people seem to think that the natural and correct response is to brutally invade and occupy the seceding state. For freedom and justice and all that.

But would it be against the Constitution? Some would say yes. Do I honestly care what some glorified piece of paper says on the issue? No.

Do you care at all what the Constitution says?

exactly. the point of secession is that they would no longer be party to the constitution. so the complaint "but that's against the constitution" seems to be at best meaningless, and to fundamentally miss the point.

"we're independent"
"no you aren't, that's not allowed by the constitution"
"conveniently, we are no longer bound by the constitution, what with the seceding and all"
"well, i don't like it"
"too bad"

I think the Southern States tried to use this line of reasoning. It did not work then and it will not work today.

Do you care at all what the Constitution says?

Hey Shrubya posts on NSG!

There is not significant group within California that wants independence. In fact what may happen is that it is broke up into smaller states. There was a movement years back that was seeking a split. But the notion of the state separating from the US is a pipe dream at best.

Yes, it would probably split into at least two states.

And, as others have said, the matter of whether states could legally separate from the Union was decided almost 150 years ago. It was decided after more than 600,000 lives had been lost fighting over it.

Hey Shrubya posts on NSG!

:confused:

I think the Southern States tried to use this line of reasoning. It did not work then and it will not work today.

so you intend to flatten sacremento and burn the giant sequoias and bomb los angeles into submission if they tried to leave? why? at least with the southern states there was a plausible argument for kicking the living crap out of them. what would such an argument be in the modern era though?

Besides, why is the Constitution held up like the embodiment of moral truth anyway? It was made by fallible men (particularly fallible in my estimation), and to give it such reverence seems to be more mystical and cultish than rational.

Maybe because the Constitution has in it that this is the "SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND" Could that be it?

:confused:

The whole not caring what it says bit, it's just a piece of paper.

exactly. the point of secession is that they would no longer be party to the constitution. so the complaint "but that's against the constitution" seems to be at best meaningless, and to fundamentally miss the point.

"we're independent"
"no you aren't, that's not allowed by the constitution"
"conveniently, we are no longer bound by the constitution, what with the seceding and all"
"well, i don't like it"
"too bad"

Besides, why is the Constitution held up like the embodiment of moral truth anyway? It was made by fallible men (particularly fallible in my estimation), and to give it such reverence seems to be more mystical and cultish than rational.

If California secedes we'll nuke the tectonic plates and have it slide into the Pacific.

Don't be a moron. Continental crust isn't subducted under ocean crust. And it's not that kind of fault anyway.

Don't be a moron. Continental crust isn't subducted under ocean crust. And it's not that kind of fault anyway.

Who said he's using the old fault?

no. but you'd have to occupy san fran with tanks too if you were serious about treating the secession as 'illegal', so it's all the same.

And that would happen. I for one am under no illusion that California's coolness alone would save it from being promptly invaded by the United States Military. Also, I think some in Washington would jump at the chance to bomb San Francisco back to the stone age.

We would lose, whether or not we put up a good fight. It would end up being a very bad event.

Don't be a moron. Continental crust isn't subducted under ocean crust. And it's not that kind of fault anyway.

*waves hand*

it works exactly like I say it will

Do you care at all what the Constitution says?

Do I honestly care what some glorified piece of paper says on the issue? No.

Sorry for being vague.

Maybe because the Constitution has in it that this is the "SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND" Could that be it?

So what? Some men, no less mortal than you and I, put that in there. Why does their word automatically have moral power?

So what? Some men, no less mortal than you and I, put that in there. Why does their word automatically have moral power?

Moral?

And, as others have said, the matter of whether states could legally separate from the Union was decided almost 150 years ago. It was decided after more than 600,000 lives had been lost fighting over it.

might makes right?

if so, then no, it wasn't decided (as might could very well swing the other way next time). and if not, then it was decided by reason, and reason decided on self-determination.

Who said he's using the old fault?

The San Andreas Fault is a Transform Fault, not a subduction zone. That means the plates are sliding past each other, one is not going underneath the other.

And even if it was a Subduction Zone, it would be the Pacific Plate going under the North American plate, not vice versa, since continental crust doesn't subduct underneath ocean floor crust.

Basically, to spoil the wet dreams of millions of Conservatives, San Francisco isn't sliding into the sea. It can't unless how the Earth works with plate tectonics and all gets so fucked up beyond belief that it would be the least of our problems.

*waves hand*

it works exactly like I say it will

I'm afraid you're incorrect. The San Andreas fault doesn't work that way. No continental crust works that way, either. See my above post.

might makes right?

if so, then no, it wasn't decided (as might could very well swing the other way next time). and if not, then it was decided by reason, and reason decided on self-determination.

This is reality. Reason is all well and good, but it's not going to prevent us getting thrashed by the US military for doing exactly what the South got thrashed for.

I get the funny feeling he's not being serious y'know

It's hard to tell with Trollgaard. He's been dead serious about some ludicrous things he's said before.

I'm afraid you're incorrect. The San Andreas fault doesn't work that way. No continental crust works that way, either. See my above post.

I get the funny feeling he's not being serious y'know

Sorry for being vague.

So are you a Ron Paul supporter? He does not like the Constitution either.

So what? Some men, no less mortal than you and I, put that in there. Why does their word automatically have moral power?

I'll take what the founding fathers said over you for they are wiser than you and me put together. As Ben Franklin said when the Declaration was being debated, "We must all hang together for assuredly we will all hang seperately."

And that would happen. I for one am under no illusion that California's coolness alone would save it from being promptly invaded by the United States Military. Also, I think some in Washington would jump at the chance to bomb San Francisco back to the stone age.

We would lose, whether or not we put up a good fight. It would end up being a very bad event.

well, you don't do it when the fascists are running the show - they're crazy enough to actually order nuke strikes. but i think that in general the ruling class would have a hard time convincing people to go along with shooting other americans simply because they no longer want to play. what possible argument could be advanced in favor of doing so?

California can't seceed, since it depends on upwards of 25% of its electrical power from out of state. If it were to seceed, it would start suffering from rolling blackouts, as California cannot produce all the power it needs. That would affect hospitals, government, technology centers, manufacturing, as well as its citizens.

This is reality. Reason is all well and good, but it's not going to prevent us getting thrashed by the US military for doing exactly what the South got thrashed for.

opening fire on the us military? well, yeah, i don't recommend that.

California can't seceed, since it depends on upwards of 25% of its electrical power from out of state. If it were to seceed, it would start suffering from rolling blackouts, as California cannot produce all the power it needs. That would affect hospitals, government, technology centers, manufacturing, as well as its citizens.

secession=closing the borders to all commerce? really?

I for one am under no illusion that California's coolness alone would save it from being promptly invaded by the United States Military.

No, it would be human decency and a desire to not murder people for doing something that isn't even a crime that would stop the US from invading.

Personally, I like to think that we're a little more civilized than we were in 1861.

I'm afraid you're incorrect. The San Andreas fault doesn't work that way. No continental crust works that way, either. See my above post.

This one is resisting the Force!

*waves hand twice*

I'll take what the founding fathers said over you for they are wiser than you and me put together. As Ben Franklin said when the Declaration was being debated, "We must all hang together for assuredly we will all hang seperately."

ignoring that that was a sardonic pun in the face of actions already taken and the threat of a massive crackdown if the british loyalists regained full control...

therefore you'll hang anyone who doesn't want to hang with you?

The silliest part is that so many people seem to think that the natural and correct response is to brutally invade and occupy the seceding state. For freedom and justice and all that.

indeed. though nobody ever seems to want to attempt to offer an argument in favor of doing so, or a reason why we should actually expect anyone to go along with the bombing and occupation and such. i wish someone would at least try.

secession=closing the borders to all commerce? really?

If the US Government wanted to put pressure on California to get them to abandon a secession attempt, then that's exactly what it would mean.

Moral?

Yes. Why should I follow it of my own free will?

So are you a Ron Paul supporter? He does not like the Constitution either.

I wouldn't vote for him, because I find voting to be a meaningless exercise. But he is better than the rest of the goblins he's competing against.

I'll take what the founding fathers said over you for they are wiser than you and me put together. As Ben Franklin said when the Declaration was being debated, "We must all hang together for assuredly we will all hang seperately."

The Founding Fathers were nothing more than self-interested men who desired wealth from public land speculation, easy credit policies, protectionism and Treasury debt speculation. To give them this demi-god, altruistic image is quite simply ludicrous. And anyone who desires extraordinary powers has always appealled to the fear of the masses of one crisis or another in order to take away their rights; this is the story of human history. The Constitution is merely one emanation of this principle, one that has done extraordinarily well in history.

therefore you'll hang anyone who doesn't want to hang with you?

Would you really be surprised?

If the US Government wanted to put pressure on California to get them to abandon a secession attempt, then that's exactly what it would mean.

i guess. but i suspect that they would quickly find that they are just as dependent on cali as cali is on them. and one suspects that if they were to leave, they would try to work out the details of it before actually doing so, as part of a general democratic process.

This one is resisting the Force!

*waves hand twice*

Indeed. And this one (meaning yourself) is stupidly waving his hand while speaking utter bullshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

...."It further held that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null"."....

Indeed. And this one (meaning yourself) is stupidly waving his hand while speaking utter bullshit.

Star Wars? The Force?

u don't mah joke?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

It further held that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".

...under the constitution. which is the very thing that no longer applies to an independent entity. honestly, the legal argument is just stupid.

Star Wars? The Force?

u don't mah joke?

It's a very stupid joke. And not funny. You suck at this game. Phail.

btw, the south seceding is more of a distraction than anything else, as their actions were clearly unjust and illegitimate. not least because they left specifically in order to make sure that a huge class of people would continue to be denied self-determination.

...under the constitution. which is the very thing that no longer applies to an independent entity. honestly, the legal argument is just stupid.

I've really yet to see a rational argument on WHY the Constitution should be obeyed. Everyone seems to just have it as a given.

I've really yet to see a rational argument on WHY the Constitution should be obeyed. Everyone seems to just have it as a given.

The constitution is the law of the land because we - historically, legally, and tacitly - have made it so. Because we are a society where the rule of law prevails over individual whims, the constitution is regarded as the final arbiter of all legal motions in the United States. For all its flaws, it's a powerful document and has worked pretty well for us.

Having said that, I've believed for more than 20 years that California should seriously consider secession. Depending upon the statistics you read, California is the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world. With nearly 40 million people and the economic might needed to do so, California can support itself as an independent nation.

The economics are really only one of the reasons that California should secede, however. If and when the situation ever comes to fruition, it will probably be over a constitutional issue, the modern equivalent of the states' rights arguments that were at the center of the southern secession. And, I suspect, it will begin over something as seemingly trivial as drug laws or a similar matter. As California continues to flout US law enforcement over marijuana laws, for example, eventually the matter will have to be decided, or the federal government faces the very real risk of its authority being undermined. When that happens, people cease to see the feds and the constitution as the final authority, and the rule of law loses out.

The economics are really only one of the reasons that California should secede, however. If and when the situation ever comes to fruition, it will probably be over a constitutional issue, the modern equivalent of the states' rights arguments that were at the center of the southern secession. And, I suspect, it will begin over something as seemingly trivial as drug laws or a similar matter. As California continues to flout US law enforcement over marijuana laws, for example, eventually the matter will have to be decided, or the federal government faces the very real risk of its authority being undermined. When that happens, people cease to see the feds and the constitution as the final authority, and the rule of law loses out.

California does get substantial leeway. For example, California's not-treaty (http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/08/california_and_.html) with the UK. Eventually the US government will crack down on such things, and that is going to piss a lot of Californians off.

The constitution is the law of the land because we - historically, legally, and tacitly - have made it so. Because we are a society where the rule of law prevails over individual whims, the constitution is regarded as the final arbiter of all legal motions in the United States. For all its flaws, it's a powerful document and has worked pretty well for us.

But what makes the Constitution a law of reason, over a law of personal whim? We can say that customary law is more likely to be in accordance with reason, because it is the product of billions upon billions of iterated interactions of one individual with another individual, and thus necessarily is bent towards giving each his due, the true definition of justice. (See Merchant Law, law of Medieval Ireland and Iceland, Anglo-Saxonic law, and other ancient systems of informal law.) In fact, as we can observe with Merchant Law in Europe, customary law of one region is easily integrateable with the customary law of other regions, as they all depend upon this broad moral consensus.

But we cannot say the same of the Constitution, which was effectively constructed by a small group in a very limited amount of time and then imposed onto the populace (Whether you agree or disagree with how I word it, this is effectively how it worked.) The same thing with any legislative/statutory law, which is passed often with comparatively little moral consensus, and can ultimately be traced back to the desires of a small number of individuals (politicians, bureaucrats/regulators, and private parties who have a personal stake in having the law passed.) And of course, legislative law in one nation conflicts with legislative law in another country (from minutia such as food regulation up to the various Constitutions of nations.)

So, in fact, the Constitution is not really a Law in the highest sense of a law of reason, nor is the legislation that ultimately derives its power from it. It is ultimately the manifestation of the whims of men long dead and buried as well as those whims of men who wish to turn situations to their advantage in this life. As such, one cannot claim the Constitution as an embodiment of moral truth.

But we cannot say the same of the Constitution, which was effectively constructed by a small group in a very limited amount of time and then imposed onto the populace (Whether you agree or disagree with how I word it, this is effectively how it worked.)

But that's not correct. What brought the constitution into authority was the endorsement of the states which were part of the US at the time. The legislatures endorsed the document, and have continued to do so since then. Since then, territories have not become states unless their populations or legislatures vote to join the United States as states, which means accepting the constitution as law.

But what makes the Constitution a law of reason, over a law of personal whim? We can say that customary law is more likely to be in accordance with reason, because it is the product of billions upon billions of iterated interactions of one individual with another individual, and thus necessarily is bent towards giving each his due, the true definition of justice. (See Merchant Law, law of Medieval Ireland and Iceland, Anglo-Saxonic law, and other ancient systems of informal law.) In fact, as we can observe with Merchant Law in Europe, customary law of one region is easily integrateable with the customary law of other regions, as they all depend upon this broad moral consensus.

But we cannot say the same of the Constitution, which was effectively constructed by a small group in a very limited amount of time and then imposed onto the populace (Whether you agree or disagree with how I word it, this is effectively how it worked.) The same thing with any legislative/statutory law, which is passed often with comparatively little moral consensus, and can ultimately be traced back to the desires of a small number of individuals (politicians, bureaucrats/regulators, and private parties who have a personal stake in having the law passed.) And of course, legislative law in one nation conflicts with legislative law in another country (from minutia such as food regulation up to the various Constitutions of nations.)

So, in fact, the Constitution is not really a Law in the highest sense of a law of reason, nor is the legislation that ultimately derives its power from it. It is ultimately the manifestation of the whims of men long dead and buried as well as those whims of men who wish to turn situations to their advantage in this life. As such, one cannot claim the Constitution as an embodiment of moral truth.

The Constitution was not "imposed" on people. The states ratified it (which makes them accountable to follow it). Therefore, the Constitution is really a set of laws, and not just the whims of men long dead.

...under the constitution. which is the very thing that no longer applies to an independent entity. honestly, the legal argument is just stupid.

Since California accepted the Constitution when it became a state, it is legally bound to follow it (which also means it can't declare itself an independent entity).

Besides, how many Californians ACTUALLY support secession? I doubt it'd be near enough to make an attempt, otherwise we'd be hearing a lot more about it on the news.

Since California accepted the Constitution when it became a state, it is legally bound to follow it (which also means it can't declare itself an independent entity).

Besides, how many Californians ACTUALLY support secession? I doubt it'd be near enough to make an attempt, otherwise we'd be hearing a lot more about it on the news.

Probably not many, right now. I would imagine the numbers of people who have actually given it serious thought are very few - in the low thousands, perhaps? And those who have actually pursued the matter, with petitions or other legal venues? Nil.


You're right, of course, about California being legally bound to observe US law, but there is precedent for one country seceding - successfully - from another even though it was a highly illegal act. To quote from the document that launched the action:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

As you can see, it's not a new idea.

California will not secede.

1. Its too dependent on the other states! As has been said before, it depends on out of state electricity, plus the massive infrastructure in place.

2. Of course the US will invade and subjugate if it secedes. Its cutting off some of your power, of course you're going to try and keep it in the union, by any means necessary.

3. Too late, the armed power is mainly in the hands of the US military, which is loyal to the country, and not one particular state. And yes, the Californian National Guard will not be able to stand up to anything even the air force throws at them.

a series of questions for any that think secession is illegal:
1) do you think that all laws ought be obeyed?
2) assuming no (since yes is clearly insane in light of the existence of crazy dictatorships), do you agree that laws derive justness from the consent of the people, or are there some other principles at work entirely? and if so, what principles are those?
3) how is secession inherently in violation of these principles?
4) if it is not, then what does illegality have to do with anything?

1. Its too dependent on the other states! As has been said before, it depends on out of state electricity, plus the massive infrastructure in place.

And the northeast depends on Canadian hydroelectric power. What's your point?

2. Of course the US will invade and subjugate if it secedes. Its cutting off some of your power, of course you're going to try and keep it in the union, by any means necessary.

I don't understand why this is assumed.

3. Too late, the armed power is mainly in the hands of the US military, which is loyal to the country, and not one particular state. And yes, the Californian National Guard will not be able to stand up to anything even the air force throws at them.

No one is saying California would win or even start an armed conflict.

2. Of course the US will invade and subjugate if it secedes. Its cutting off some of your power, of course you're going to try and keep it in the union, by any means necessary.

would you, personally, support bombing fresno should they attempt to leave the union? what percentage of the population of usia as a whole do you believe thinks we ought kill thousands of people merely for not wanting to play anymore?

would you, personally, support bombing fresno should they attempt to leave the union? what percentage of the population of usia as a whole do you believe thinks we ought kill thousands of people merely for not wanting to play anymore?

Hmm. Bombing Fresno... No, no. Mustn't go there.

And the northeast depends on Canadian hydroelectric power. What's your point?

that new york cannot ever leave canadia, obviously

a series of questions for any that think secession is illegal:
1) do you think that all laws ought be obeyed?
2) assuming no (since yes is clearly insane in light of the existence of crazy dictatorships), do you agree that laws derive justness from the consent of the people, or are there some other principles at work entirely? and if so, what principles are those?
3) how is secession inherently in violation of these principles?
4) if it is not, then what does illegality have to do with anything?

1: Depends on the law, but for the most part in a (relatively) free society, yes
2: N/A
3: Secession is in violation of the Constitution, which is federal law (and was accepted by the states, when they joined the union)
4: N/A

that new york cannot ever leave canadia, obviously

New York was never part of Canada, whereas California is part of the US.

New York was never part of Canada, whereas California is part of the US.

I think you need to check the batteries in your sarcasm meter.

I think you need to check the batteries in your sarcasm meter.

DOH!

California can secede if it wants. The US can then make some serious money on trade with California. I mean they will need food, electricity, oil, ect ect.

Trade out of California might also be kind of hard. The shipping ports are limited so things will take longer to travel and cost more in the process. Also air travel will become profitable charge tariffs for airplanes wanting to fly through US airspace.

There is also the off chance that Mexico may decide it wants California back and decide to conquer it. Then California would be a part of Mexico which is a whole lot better than the US.:rolleyes:

It really kind of reminds me of the Conch Republic (when the Florida Keys attempted to leave the union) This didn't even require troops just the flipping of a power switch. Something about needing electricity and water.

There is also the off chance that Mexico may decide it wants California back and decide to conquer it. Then California would be a part of Mexico which is a whole lot better than the US.:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

It really kind of reminds me of the Conch Republic (when the Florida Keys attempted to leave the union) This didn't even require troops just the flipping of a power switch. Something about needing electricity and water.

No such thing happened. Here is the extent of the "secession" incident.

When the City Council's complaints went unanswered by the Federal Government and attempts to get an injunction against the roadblock failed in court, as a form of protest Mayor Dennis Wardlow and the Council declared the Keys' "independence" on April 23, 1982. In the eyes of the Council, since the federal government had set up the equivalent of a border station as if the Keys were a foreign nation, the Keys might as well become one. As many of the local citizens were referred to as Conchs, the "nation" took the name of the Conch Republic.

As part of the protest, Mayor Wardlow was proclaimed Prime Minister of the Republic, which immediately declared war against the U.S. (symbolically breaking a loaf of stale Cuban bread over the head of a man dressed in a naval uniform), quickly surrendered after one minute (to the man in the uniform), and applied for one billion dollars in foreign aid.

And the northeast depends on Canadian hydroelectric power. What's your point?


Canada is friendly with the US.

I doubt that the US would be very friendly with California after basically being told by the latter to fuck off.

But that's not correct. What brought the constitution into authority was the endorsement of the states which were part of the US at the time. The legislatures endorsed the document, and have continued to do so since then. Since then, territories have not become states unless their populations or legislatures vote to join the United States as states, which means accepting the constitution as law.

The Constitution was not "imposed" on people. The states ratified it (which makes them accountable to follow it). Therefore, the Constitution is really a set of laws, and not just the whims of men long dead.

But it is still imposed by one group over another. The Founding Fathers were supposed to merely re-write the Articles, not to completely eliminate them. Many people (rightly) saw it as a coup, and continued to do so. And there was much resistance to them in state legislatures until they capitulated. The Constitution simply did not have the moral consensus that is a characteristic of Law of reason, such as customary law, of rendering each what is his due.* And neither does the endless flood of legislation that derives its power from it, thus making the Constitution complicit in laws of whim over Laws of reason.

Edit: * Not to mention that the Law is made apparent by reason through action (i.e. the constant interactions of individuals with one another), not through willing it (thinking it up, writing down and then enforcing it.)

Canada is friendly with the US.

I doubt that the US would be very friendly with California after basically being told by the latter to fuck off.

Money talks. An independent California would have to buy a lot of things from the US. We wouldn't have to be "very friendly" with California, just willing to do business.

Money talks. An independent California would have to buy a lot of things from the US. We wouldn't have to be "very friendly" with California, just willing to do business.

The US would drastically hike up costs of electricity and water going to California.

Money isn't the only thing that matters. Pride and hatred do as well, and I've been a Californian long enough to know that a lot of people don't like us as it is.

California should become independent and be partitioned into two states, North California and South California. Since the North is far superior, it deserves to be its own state. :D

This is reality. Reason is all well and good, but it's not going to prevent us getting thrashed by the US military for doing exactly what the South got thrashed for.

Your saying "us" like you are already an independant nation. I don't know about YOU folks but I am an american first, then comes my state loyalty. However should states secede and my state did I would support it (my state, not the secession).

California should become independent and be partitioned into two states, North California and South California. Since the North is far superior, it deserves to be its own state. :D

No no, I agree with the partition, just not the name.

It should be "California" and "South California."

;)

Your saying "us" like you are already an independant nation. I don't know about YOU folks but I am an american first, then comes my state loyalty. However should states secede and my state did I would support it (my state, not the secession).

So basically you're just talking for no reason?

I'm saying "us" as in California. Because I am a resident of that state and I know it would get thrashed.

And if you truly are an American first, you would support the Union side.

No no, I agree with the partition, just not the name.

It should be "California" and "South California."

;)

Sounds good to me. :)

This is reality. Reason is all well and good, but it's not going to prevent us getting thrashed by the US military for doing exactly what the South got thrashed for.

So basically you're just talking for no reason?

I'm saying "us" as in California. Because I am a resident of that state and it would get thrashed.

And if you truly are an American first, you would support the Union side.

I would vote for people who would keep us in the union, I wouldnt fight over it however. If it actually passed I would make the best of it and be loyal to my new government. Yes it would get thrashed, but most likly if things get that bad america will have bigger things to worry about.

The Constitution was not "imposed" on people. The states ratified it (which makes them accountable to follow it). Therefore, the Constitution is really a set of laws, and not just the whims of men long dead.

Not to mention when new states were added, they too had to ratify and agree to abide by, the Constution

Since California accepted the Constitution when it became a state, it is legally bound to follow it (which also means it can't declare itself an independent entity).

Besides, how many Californians ACTUALLY support secession? I doubt it'd be near enough to make an attempt, otherwise we'd be hearing a lot more about it on the news.

Not to mention, it fought for the North in the Civil War.

California can secede if it wants. The US can then make some serious money on trade with California. I mean they will need food, electricity, oil, ect ect.

I see you have not been paying attention. They can't secede! Period.

I see you have not been paying attention. They can't secede! Period.

Because some document written by some dead guys centuries ago says so.

Actually, California loses money by being in the US.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html

Well, problem is, they get military protection. So really, unless the US declared California a protectorate, or what-have-you, it would have to fund and support it's own military, problem losing a great deal more money in the process.

But it is still imposed by one group over another. The Founding Fathers were supposed to merely re-write the Articles, not to completely eliminate them.

The people at the convention thought differently. Did you know that they did try to re-write them? When they attempted to do so, they realize it was easier to start over.

Many people (rightly) saw it as a coup, and continued to do so. And there was much resistance to them in state legislatures until they capitulated.

They lost the vote. In some states it was by single digits. Thomas Jefferson Opposed the Constitution and yet he expanded Federal Powers during his time in office.

The Constitution simply did not have the moral consensus that is a characteristic of Law of reason, such as customary law, of rendering each what is his due.*

Prove it.

And neither does the endless flood of legislation that derives its power from it, thus making the Constitution complicit in laws of whim over Laws of reason.

I'll wait for a lawyer but I'll just say prove it.

I see you have not been paying attention. They can't secede! Period.

Nor have you, evidently. It's all theoretical at this point. The US is a very different country than it was 150 years ago, and how such a matter would transpire would be very different than it was back then.

Even more interesting, however, is the matter of the economic impact. California has the largest agricultural economy, and is the largest agricultural producer in the country. Feeding itself isn't an issue, and I doubt California would have a difficult time finding markets overseas to send it produce. Water, however, is another matter. Presently, California - like much of the West - is scrambling for water resources, and new agreements would have to be written up to equitably divide the water resources of the Colorado River, not only with the US but with Mexico, as well. Fisheries agreements, too, would have to be renegotiated, as would the fate of the US's many military installations within California's borders. New immigration agreements between Mexico and California would have to be determined, and given California's need for Mexican labor, Mexico could be at an advantage in negotiating new immigration laws.

It's an interesting idea.

Because some document written by some dead guys centuries ago says so.

Actually 600,000 dead people. "He who fails to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them."

By opposing the Constitution, you are opposing the Supreme Law of the Land.

Well, problem is, they get military protection. So really, unless the US declared California a protectorate, or what-have-you, it would have to fund and support it's own military, problem losing a great deal more money in the process.

California gets military protection from whom? Without being a part of the US, California wouldn't be saddled with the disagreements into which the US has become embroiled, and would actually have the opportunity to pursue agreements with countries that are more suitable to its own policies. California doesn't need American military protection - what it does benefit from is American military spending. As I pointed out earlier, California is - by itself - among the ten largest economies in the world. Without having to pay out money to the US federal government anymore - once debt and similar matters had been settled - California could fund its own military. And since it would be free of the US's military entanglements, it would probably be able to focus on a military force more along the lines of nations like Canada or other medium sized countries.

The people at the convention thought differently. Did you know that they did try to re-write them? When they attempted to do so, they realize it was easier to start over.

That way instead of being limited by the Articles, all of those public land speculators, money lenders, Treasury debt holders and industrialists could make themselves even richer through political control of the economy. Convenient, huh?

They lost the vote. In some states it was by single digits. Thomas Jefferson Opposed the Constitution and yet he expanded Federal Powers during his time in office.

Shows how much principle Jefferson had. Also, just because more people thought it was a good idea doesn't make it any more right (argumentum ad populam.) It was imposed upon those who disagreed, whereas a real Law of reason would be accepted by everyone who partook in it (like Anglo-Saxonic law, Medieval Irish and Icelandic Law, Merchant Law, etc.)

Prove it.

Oh, I don't know. Maybe all those anti-Federalists who opposed the Constitution might demonstrate that it didn't have complete moral consensus?

I'll wait for a lawyer but I'll just say prove it.

These laws, which need only a majority vote in many cases and thus are lacking the full moral consensus that customary law would have, are enabled by the Constitution; in fact, they are judged in terms of their constitutionality. And since many laws are passed which are ultimatively coercive but not judged to be against the Constitution, the Constitution is just as tyrannical as they are through its implicit consent.

Actually 600,000 dead people. "He who fails to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them."

By opposing the Constitution, you are opposing the Supreme Law of the Land.

Oh, so because the government has the power to murder a whole lot of people, this means they have moral power? Interesting.

Well, problem is, they get military protection. So really, unless the US declared California a protectorate, or what-have-you, it would have to fund and support it's own military, problem losing a great deal more money in the process.

Exactly what threats would California face that it's National Guard couldn't deal with?

Exactly what threats would California face that it's National Guard couldn't deal with?

Not to mention that California wouldn't have to fund an international empire, and would likely have good relations with everyone else that could allow for just a small security force.

That way instead of being limited by the Articles, all of those public land speculators, money lenders, Treasury debt holders and industrialists could make themselves even richer through political control of the economy. Convenient, huh?

You have a problem. The American Currency was not around till AFTER the Constitution. Each state had its own currency which made things difficult for the Confederacy.

Shows how much principle Jefferson had. Also, just because more people thought it was a good idea doesn't make it any more right (argumentum ad populam.) It was imposed upon those who disagreed, whereas a real Law of reason would be accepted by everyone who partook in it (like Anglo-Saxonic law, Medieval Irish and Icelandic Law, Merchant Law, etc.)

Guess what? That's what happens when things get voted upon. The State legislatures VOTED to ratify it. They did not have to agree to it if they did not want to. They did. It passed with the majority needed. Remember that 9 states were needed before the Constitution was adopted. Washington himself preferred to have all 13 states ratify the Constitution. WOW!!!

Oh, I don't know. Maybe all those anti-Federalists who opposed the Constitution might demonstrate that it didn't have complete moral consensus?

Did you ever hear of the anti-federalist papers?

These laws, which need only a majority vote in many cases and thus are lacking the full moral consensus that customary law would have, are enabled by the Constitution; in fact, they are judged in terms of their constitutionality.

I love how you are throwing these terms around without elaborating on them. Care to elaborate on the terms you are using? You are right that they are judged by their constitutionality. That is why there is a Supreme Court as prescribed in Article 3 of the US Constitution.

And since many laws are passed which are ultimatively coercive but not judged to be against the Constitution, the Constitution is just as tyrannical as they are through its implicit consent.

If they are not judged to be unconstitutional then they are constitutional as prescribed by Article 3.

Exactly what threats would California face that it's National Guard couldn't deal with?

How about a 10 on the Ricther Scale? Or how about a Tsunami slamming into the coast? I can rule out a Hurricane because the waters are to cold for them to survive .

Not to mention that California wouldn't have to fund an international empire, and would likely have good relations with everyone else that could allow for just a small security force.

California would need to defend itself from the rest of the US. The Federal Government would never allow California secede

How about a 10 on the Ricther Scale? Or how about a Tsunami slamming into the coast? I can rule out a Hurricane because the waters are to cold for them to survive .

And what happens to any other medium sized country when such a disaster strikes?

California would need to defend itself from the rest of the US. The Federal Government would never allow California secede

Why not?

Washington himself preferred to have all 13 states ratify the Constitution. WOW!!!

Of course he did, because he wanted them all to be in the new Union. Had a state not ratified it, they wouldn't have been in the US.

And what happens to any other medium sized country when such a disaster strikes?



Why not?

Because for one it wouldn't be very fair. It didn't let the South secede, but it'll let California go? Also the US would lose of money, power, and prestige.

You have a problem. The American Currency was not around till AFTER the Constitution. Each state had its own currency which made things difficult for the Confederacy.

Each currency was expressed in terms of a weight of gold; the Treasury people wanted the face value even though the currency was itself worthless. Hence why they wanted a strong central government in order to impose strong taxes and profiteer off of a minimal investment (buying up debt from impoverished soldiers at low price.)

Guess what? That's what happens when things get voted upon. The State legislatures VOTED to ratify it. They did not have to agree to it if they did not want to. They did. It passed with the majority needed. Remember that 9 states were needed before the Constitution was adopted. Washington himself preferred to have all 13 states ratify the Constitution. WOW!!!

Guess what? Voting is a most meaningless enterprise. It shows no moral power, it merely just shows that a number of people like something (again, argumentum ad populam.) Customary law gains its power through the interactions of people with one another who wish to achieve their own ends, while statutory law gains its power through brute force (such as having more people on your side and 600,000 dead.)

Did you ever hear of the anti-federalist papers?

Yes, I have.

I love how you are throwing these terms around without elaborating on them. Care to elaborate on the terms you are using? You are right that they are judged by their constitutionality. That is why there is a Supreme Court as prescribed in Article 3 of the US Constitution.

Yes, but they are not judged upon whether they are actually morally right, just whether they agree with that piece of paper.

If they are not judged to be unconstitutional then they are constitutional as prescribed by Article 3.

But it still doesn't make them any more right. They do not conflict with the Constitution, but they do conflict with reason. And, if they are in accordance with the Constitution, then the Constitution is in conflict with reason as well.

And what happens to any other medium sized country when such a disaster strikes?

Aide comes pouring in but can the California National Guard actually deal with a 10.0 Earthquake or Tsunami?

Of course he did, because he wanted them all to be in the new Union. Had a state not ratified it, they wouldn't have been in the US.

Which would have been their choice. They choose to be a part of the Union. They did not have to be.

Because for one it wouldn't be very fair. It didn't let the South secede, but it'll let California go? Also the US would lose of money, power, and prestige.

What wouldn't be fair would be to stop California from leaving. Self determination and all that.

As for the loss of money, power and prestige, do you honestly believe that's worth invading and subjugating them for?

Each currency was expressed in terms of a weight of gold; the Treasury people wanted the face value even though the currency was itself worthless. Hence why they wanted a strong central government in order to impose strong taxes and profiteer off of a minimal investment (buying up debt from impoverished soldiers at low price.)

Except when you have more than one currency inside one country. Having one currency makes doing business easier between states AND nations.

Guess what? Voting is a most meaningless enterprise.

I just stopped reading when I saw this. What do you want? A dictator? That is far more centralized than what you are advocating against. Or do you just want anarchy?

And what happens to any other medium sized country when such a disaster strikes?



Why not?



Of course he did, because he wanted them all to be in the new Union. Had a state not ratified it, they wouldn't have been in the US.

Because California is such a huge part of its economy, because it's such a huge part of the tax base, because in doing so it loses the ports of San Diego (who would get the Navy Base there? Or would that be the equivalent of Fort Sumter?), Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland and San Francisco. Because if it lets one state leaves "just cause it feels like it," then it risks losing states whenever those states don't particularly like the way the national government is going, ending up with 50 weak and fractured states instead of one strong nation. And then there's the issue of pride.

Aide comes pouring in but can the California National Guard actually deal with a 10.0 Earthquake or Tsunami?

No, but few countries can deal with such a thing on their own. Does this mean they don't deserve to be independent?

Which would have been their choice. They choose to be a part of the Union. They did not have to be.

They chose to join but can't choose to leave? That doesn't strike me as particularly democratic.

They chose to join but can't choose to leave? That doesn't strike me as particularly democratic.

The issue was settled long ago.

No, but few countries can deal with such a thing on their own. Does this mean they don't deserve to be independent?



They chose to join but can't choose to leave? That doesn't strike me as particularly democratic.

The Southern States entered into the same agreement. They didn't get to leave. Why should California?

And what happens to any other medium sized country when such a disaster strikes?


Well, which other medium sized nations get the same sorts of problems and how do they deal with them? Maybe looking for other nations of about the same size as California that are also on the Pacific Ring of Fire might be a good start.



Edit: I just looked up the Kobe Earthquake in Japan, a much larger country than California would be (in population).

"Approximately 6,434 people (final estimate as of 2006), mainly in Kobe, lost their lives as a result of the earthquake."

The earthquake (a 7.3 on the Richter scale) caused "$200 billion USD in damage, 2.5% of Japan's GDP at the time."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_earthquake

The issue was settled long ago.

Do you honestly think that war should settle issues for all time?

The Southern States entered into the same agreement. They didn't get to leave. Why should California?

Any state should be allowed to leave, not just California. A good case can be made that the South should not have been allowed to leave since they only wanted to leave to deny others the right to self determination.

Because California is such a huge part of its economy, because it's such a huge part of the tax base

There's a valid realpolitik reason.

(who would get the Navy Base there? Or would that be the equivalent of Fort Sumter?)

That would have to be decided in negotiations between the US and California.

Because if it lets one state leaves "just cause it feels like it," then it risks losing states whenever those states don't particularly like the way the national government is going, ending up with 50 weak and fractured states instead of one strong nation. And then there's the issue of pride.

I wouldn't call of the US states "weak". Militarily, perhaps, but so are most states in the world. Economically, most US states are among the richest states in the world. And by GDP/capita all of them are among the richest.

As for pride, even Serbia was recently civilized enough to swallow it's pride and let Montenegro go. Are we not as civilized as Serbia?

edit: I have some things to attend to, so I'll check back on this thread tomorrow.

There's a valid realpolitik reason.

I don't know what percentage of the American economy California is, but if it's in the top 10 economies in the world by itself, I think that it's a sizable enough portion that the US would probably take measures to prevent its leaving.

As for pride, even Serbia was recently civilized enough to swallow it's pride and let Montenegro go. Are we not as civilized as Serbia?

There's no real nice way to answer that.

1: Depends on the law, but for the most part in a (relatively) free society, yes
2: N/A
3: Secession is in violation of the Constitution, which is federal law (and was accepted by the states, when they joined the union)
4: N/A

your answer to 1 was no, therefore 2 requires an answer. and 3 doesn't answer the question. try again?

I see you have not been paying attention. They can't secede! Period.

do you intend to actually attempt to address any arguments?

It's not illegal to secede. The Civil War is not likely to repeat. Then again, a state probably wouldn't secede.

do you intend to actually attempt to address any arguments?

I did! I gave you the correct response.

I did! I gave you the correct response.

oh, you explained why it is better to occupy and oppress people rather than respect the fundamental right of self-determination? could you please point me to that post?

....

Congress doesn't pass amendments...they may propose the amendment, but it is up to 3/4 of the state legislatures to ratify it.
Congress has to get the proposed amendment out of both houses (With a super majority IIRC), so in that sence it passes the amendment. The amendment must be ratified by the states of course.

your answer to 1 was no, therefore 2 requires an answer. and 3 doesn't answer the question. try again?

a series of questions for any that think secession is illegal:
1) do you think that all laws ought be obeyed?
2) assuming no (since yes is clearly insane in light of the existence of crazy dictatorships), do you agree that laws derive justness from the consent of the people, or are there some other principles at work entirely? and if so, what principles are those?
3) how is secession inherently in violation of these principles?
4) if it is not, then what does illegality have to do with anything?

I see where I left myself open on #1 (and was off topic on #3), so I'll re-answer the questions

1: No (but as stated in my previous post on this question, I think most laws should be obeyed), immoral laws need to be challenged. One of the ways to do so is by breaking it.
2: Laws derive justness from being moral and for the benefit and safety of the people (murder is illegal, because it isn't moral or for the benefit and safety of the people. Slavery, assault/battery, armed robbery, etc are other examples).
3: Secession is in violation of these principles, because secession takes away from the entire nation, as well as the state that seceeds (the benefits of being united outweigh the costs, both to the seceeding party and the rest of the nation).
4: N/A

It's not illegal to secede. The Civil War is not likely to repeat. Then again, a state probably wouldn't secede.

It is illegal to secede. Texas V. White stated as such.

2: Laws derive justness from being moral and for the benefit and safety of the people (murder is illegal, because it isn't moral or for the benefit and safety of the people. Slavery, assault/battery, armed robbery, etc are other examples).
3: Secession is in violation of these principles, because secession takes away from the entire nation, as well as the state that seceeds (the benefits of being united outweigh the costs, both to the seceeding party and the rest of the nation).

it seems to me there are a whole number of trivial cases where the improvements to safety and benefits of independence are obvious (when the former nation is turned into a fascist nightmare, for example). which means that other than purely pragmatic concerns, your only principle is that of the immorality of secession. but unless self-determination is itself highly immoral, it seems to me that it is the secessionists that have an actual moral case. the anti-secessionists, on the other hand, are required to think that it is right and good to bomb people into submission if they don't wish to hang out any more. i cannot see any possible moral argument in favor of this position. it flies in the face of every halfway reasonable standard i can think of.

What would they do, throw pot at the rest of the U.S in an attempt to Terminate the Union?

3: Secession is in violation of these principles, because secession takes away from the entire nation, as well as the state that seceeds (the benefits of being united outweigh the costs, both to the seceeding party and the rest of the nation).

So was the US revolution wrong?

It is illegal to secede. Texas V. White stated as such.

And has the Supreme Court never been wrong before? For some reason I suspect that Salmon Chase, the Chief Justice of the time and former member of Lincoln's cabinet, may have had political motivations in his decision.

California independent

Many Californian people dream about it.
Well, if "many" really want to then great. I mean who are we to tell "many" that they can't... :rolleyes:


I’m wondering about the path they have to follow to achieve this.

Can they do it legally?
None and no.


Also would the rest of USA accept this? Would they send the army?
Some might, most wouldn't.


Or would it be a start for other states to do the same?
Start? There are morons like that in more then a few other states.


Is it not a good idea for the safety of the world that very big countries should be divided anyway?
Um...no, not really! And by whom? Who would have the right to even think about being able to do such a thing?!

Plus it wouldn't be such a good idea for said big countries and their people. So what's the point?

Personally, if it were not illegal, I would support the independence of California. In fact, the Republican Party are completely stupid not to support it either. An independent California means that a Democratic State is out of the United States and it becomes much easier for the United States to remain Republican.

exactly. the point of secession is that they would no longer be party to the constitution. so the complaint "but that's against the constitution" seems to be at best meaningless, and to fundamentally miss the point.

"we're independent"
"no you aren't, that's not allowed by the constitution"
"conveniently, we are no longer bound by the constitution, what with the seceding and all"
"well, i don't like it"
"too bad"
Except that's not how things work. There's no way for a state to legally break from the union in the Constitution. If they suddenly say, 'Hey, we don't wanna be a part of the US any more' then legally they are in a state of rebellion. Should they manage to hold off the rest of the US, then they succeeded in declaring independence. If not, the rebellion is crushed. But rebellion is not legal. There's no legal framework for saying "Screw you AND the horse you rode in on" within the current legal system. If there was, it would have made the whole American Revolution MUCH easier.

Look up de jure and de facto.

Vermont will soon become a socialist state :p

Except that's not how things work. There's no way for a state to legally break from the union in the Constitution. If they suddenly say, 'Hey, we don't wanna be a part of the US any more' then legally they are in a state of rebellion. Should they manage to hold off the rest of the US, then they succeeded in declaring independence.

right. and you honestly favor carpet bombing sacremento should they have the audacity to not want to play anymore? really?!

seriously, this is a simple dilemma. you can either favor free association and self-determination or you can favor oppression and murderous evil empires of doom. those are your only options. i'm all ears to hear anyone attempt to justify choosing the latter.

right. and you honestly favor carpet bombing sacremento should they have the audacity to not want to play anymore? really?!
What a LOVELY strawman you've managed to construct. Tell me, did you plan to use it for Halloween?

seriously, this is a simple dilemma. you can either favor free association and self-determination or you can favor oppression and murderous evil empires of doom. those are your only options. i'm all ears to hear anyone attempt to justify choosing the latter.
Maybe you can unblock those ears of yours and actually listen to what I have been saying. Get this through your skull, it is illegal for a state to secede. There is NO legal framework for them to do so currently in the Constitution. Now, IF a state does actually declare independence from the rest of the US, the US can ignore it, they can go to war, they can say "Hey, it's all good", whatever, but it will. Not. Be. Legal. That is the de jure fact of the matter.

What the de facto part may be would be up to the government at that point in time. So get off that high horse of yours and stop spouting such moralistic and disconnected rhetoric. It's not a choice on if the US should allow a state to go, but if it would be legal or not.

What a LOVELY strawman you've managed to construct. Tell me, did you plan to use it for Halloween?

what else could you possibly mean when talking about 'holding off the rest of the US' if not carpet bombing the fuckers into submission?

Maybe you can unblock those ears of yours and actually listen to what I have been saying. Get this through your skull, it is illegal for a state to secede. There is NO legal framework for them to do so currently in the Constitution. Now, IF a state does actually declare independence from the rest of the US, the US can ignore it, they can go to war, they can say "Hey, it's all good", whatever, but it will. Not. Be. Legal. That is the de jure fact of the matter.

What the de facto part may be would be up to the government at that point in time. So get off that high horse of yours and stop spouting such moralistic and disconnected rhetoric. It's not a choice on if the US should allow a state to go, but if it would be legal or not.

so again i ask, what the fuck does the fact that it 'isn't legal under the constitution' have to do with anything at all in the slightest? it is, at best, utterly meaningless. the constitution is no longer operative over the newly independent state. what it says about anything is utterly irrelevant. your position can only make sense if you assume that the constitution is some sort of transcendental object, which is clearly stupid.

if anything is transcendental here, it is the right of self-determination. the only way to disallow secession is to disallow self-determination. but since the constitution itself is based on the idea of self-determination, doing so can only undermine whatever authority the constitution might possess in the first place.

the only possible rational answer to the question of whether a state can secede from the union is of course they can. it cannot be otherwise without giving up on being a free society. any law to the contrary is no law at all.

Has it occurred to anyone to wonder what the point would be? If California would have to trade with the U.S. to keep its power and water going and is completely dependent upon the infrastructure, and otherwise depends on the rest of the U.S. for so much as it is, PLUS IT HAS ALMOST EVERY U.S. NAVAL BASE ON THE PACIFIC COAST, what would be the point in seceding? They're better off as part of the U.S.

Has it occurred to anyone to wonder what the point would be? If California would have to trade with the U.S. to keep its power and water going and is completely dependent upon the infrastructure, and otherwise depends on the rest of the U.S. for so much as it is, PLUS IT HAS ALMOST EVERY U.S. NAVAL BASE ON THE PACIFIC COAST, what would be the point in seceding? They're better off as part of the U.S.

well, not having so many important decisions decided by a process that requires pandering to alabamans has to count for something.

well, not having so many important decisions decided by a process that requires pandering to alabamans has to count for something.

True, but it doesn't outweigh all of the negative consequences.

If you REALLY want to do this sort of thing, you split the U.S. into several nations, not just have one state secede. Even that would be stupid in my mind, though, because we're better off united than divided.

what else could you possibly mean when talking about 'holding off the rest of the US' if not carpet bombing the fuckers into submission?
Meaning that if the US decides to declare California in a state of rebellion, that's what they are going to have to do if they want to be independent. Nowhere did I say that's what the US HAS to do. You, however, seem to want to argue a point that I didn't even bring up.

so again i ask, what the fuck does the fact that it 'isn't legal under the constitution' have to do with anything at all in the slightest?
Because, that was the fucking question, or did you happen to not read that? Would it be legal for California to break off from the US. The answer is no.

it is, at best, utterly meaningless. the constitution is no longer operative over the newly independent state. what it says about anything is utterly irrelevant. your position can only make sense if you assume that the constitution is some sort of transcendental object, which is clearly stupid.
Dear God man, do you know ANYTHING about de jure or de facto? Do you have a friggen clue about it at all? Here's a real world example for you. Taiwan is a de factor independent state. It seats its own government, passes its own laws, and doesn't listen to what the government in Beijing says. It is part of the People's Republic of China in a de jure sense and if you want to deal with China at all, you have to acknowledge that. So, yes, what the Constitution says has all the bearing in the world because if a state does break away and the US decides not to let it go, like the South during the Civil War, the US declares that the states are in rebellion and would forbid the outside world from interfering or recognizing that state, just like the South during the Civil War.

THAT is the bloody point. If California wants to break away, there is nothing in the Constitution to allow it to happen in a de jure sense without a bloody amendment or a constitutional convention. When American declared itself independent, Britain declared the colonies in rebellion against the crown. If Parliament decided to grand independence, it would take a bloody act of Parliament for that to happen to provide the legal framework.

if anything is transcendental here, it is the right of self-determination. the only way to disallow secession is to disallow self-determination. but since the constitution itself is based on the idea of self-determination, doing so can only undermine whatever authority the constitution might possess in the first place.
Yes, yes, yes, I'm sure you just love the anarchy and all that wonderful stuff. Via the revolution and everything, but the question was if there was a legal framework and there isn't. Your feelings about it are moot and completely missing the point. The question was not if it would be morally right for California to break away, nor if the US should allow it or not, but if it would be legal.

the only possible rational answer to the question of whether a state can secede from the union is of course they can. it cannot be otherwise without giving up on being a free society. any law to the contrary is no law at all.
Well, sadly, the framers forgot to put such a clause in the Constitution. Why don't you write an amendment and send it off to Congress if you think we need one.

Every state has a tiny fringe group of hooting dickholes who think it's in the best interest of their state to break away from the union. California just has more of them.

So let's see...

Can they do it? No.
Will they do it? No.
If they do, will I care? No.

Every state has a tiny fringe group of hooting dickholes who think it's in the best interest of their state to break away from the union. California just has more of them.

So let's see...

Can they do it? No.
Will they do it? No.
If they do, will I care? No.California has more of them because it has the largest economy of any single state, if it was a seperate country it would rank seventh worldwide.

Which is precisely why the rest of the US won't allow it to split off.

they could SEND the army, but i highly suspect they'd soon discouver everything between denver and the atlantic needs everything west of carlin nevada a hell of a lot worse then anything on the pacific coast needs anything east of denver!

=^^=
.../\...

California has more of them because it has the largest economy of any single state, if it was a seperate country it would rank seventh worldwide.

We all know that a country's worth is solely measured by its economy.

California has more of them because it has the largest economy of any single state, if it was a seperate country it would rank seventh worldwide.

Which is precisely why the rest of the US won't allow it to split off.

It also has the biggest of population of the state, and given an equal percentage of hooting dickholes, it would have more in total.

So was the US revolution wrong?


No. The original 13 states were colonies, and as such had no votes in Parliament or a real voice in the government of Britain, effectively rendering their residents second class citizens.

We Californians are widely disliked, but we are not second class citizens, we do in fact have adequate representation in the government of the nation.

It also has the biggest of population of the state, and given an equal percentage of hooting dickholes, it would have more in total.Don't really mean to rain on your whole "hooting dickhole" theory but I still think that the fact that California is one of the few (or perhaps only) states that would make a viable independant country might be more of a reason the topic seems to be brought up so often.

what else could you possibly mean when talking about 'holding off the rest of the US' if not carpet bombing the fuckers into submission?


He doesn't have to be in favor of it to recognize that it would happen.

Don't really mean to rain on your whole "hooting dickhole" theory but I still think that the fact that California is one of the few (or perhaps only) states that would make a viable independant country might be more of a reason the topic seems to be brought up so often.

It's a nice idea, but only a hooting dickhole would seriously consider it at the moment. I don't think for a moment that the US would let go of one of the biggest portions of the national economy and tax base. And a lot of the country would have no problem at all, even be glad to bomb the fuck out of us.

Don't really mean to rain on your whole "hooting dickhole" theory but I still think that the fact that California is one of the few (or perhaps only) states that would make a viable independant country might be more of a reason the topic seems to be brought up so often.

That was my theory actually so please give credit where credit is due.

You can't look at a single state and say: "Well it has a good economy therefore it could survive on its own hur hur."

Thousands of other factors play in. For all we know California's booming economy might be solely due to federal intervention, as opposed to local government planning. It could sink into the ocean, burn to to the ground, or thrive without the US government.

But breaking away because 'you might be slightly better off' risking a war, economic collapse, is fucking stupid.

We Californians are widely disliked,

By who?

By who?

The LAPD clearly.

That was my theory actually so please give credit where credit is due.

You can't look at a single state and say: "Well it has a good economy therefore it could survive on its own hur hur."

Thousands of other factors play in. For all we know California's booming economy might be solely due to federal intervention, as opposed to local government planning. It could sink into the ocean, burn to to the ground, or thrive without the US government.

But breaking away because 'you might be slightly better off' risking a war, economic collapse, is fucking stupid.While I (still) agree that California will never seceed, I have to scoff at any thought that California succeeds in any way due to federal intervention. California is the Golden Goose as far as federal revenue is concerned, sending far more out than is returned to the state.

If the US Government wanted to put pressure on California to get them to abandon a secession attempt, then that's exactly what it would mean.

Why would they do that?

In the modern world if people of an area want independence it is usually granted, unless you're of the wrong religious group.

The dissolution of Soviet Union paved the modern way.

But breaking away because 'you might be slightly better off' risking a war, economic collapse, is fucking stupid.

War? Economic collapse? That's fuckin' stupid. The rest of the US invading or cutting economical ties with seceded California would be extremely stupid move both economically and in global politics: I'd expect the political and economical ties between independent California and USA be *at the very least* equivalent to US-Canada relationship.

California would be no threat to the rest of the USA with an army consisting of few voluntary civil guards and police force - Why in the hell should the US invade a close and staunch ally?

edit:
The only reason I see for the US federal government to invade seceding California would be the funding California provides to the military of the USA...OTOH independent California could still pay to USA for 'military protection'.

While I (still) agree that California will never seceed, I have to scoff at any thought that California succeeds in any way due to federal intervention. California is the Golden Goose as far as federal revenue is concerned, sending far more out than is returned to the state.

The richest states should certainly secede from being forced to help the poorest states...or whatever the government is actually spending it on.

California would be no threat to the rest of the USA with an army consisting of few voluntary civil guards and police force - Why in the hell should the US invade a close and staunch ally?

Well if California is the golden goose as far as states are concerned, I imagine the federal government will do anything necessary to keep it within the union.

Why would they do that?

In the modern world if people of an area want independence it is usually granted, unless you're of the wrong religious group.

The dissolution of Soviet Union paved the modern way.



War? Economic collapse? That's fuckin' stupid. The rest of the US invading or cutting economical ties with seceded California would be extremely stupid move both economically and in global politics: I'd expect the political and economical ties between independent California and USA be *at the very least* equivalent to US-Canada relationship.

California would be no threat to the rest of the USA with an army consisting of few voluntary civil guards and police force - Why in the hell should the US invade a close and staunch ally?

The US government is more than capable of doing things that are extremely stupid.

Much more stupid in fact than doing their darndest to holed on to their territory.

No, no no. It can't. We've already been over this. Continental crust isn't subducted, and the vast majority of the California coastline isn't a subduction zone anyway. I just can't stand this misconception.

I was kidding :p

It could sink into the ocean


No, no no. It can't. We've already been over this. Continental crust isn't subducted, and the vast majority of the California coastline isn't a subduction zone anyway. I just can't stand this misconception.

Well if California is the golden goose as far as states are concerned, I imagine the federal government will do anything necessary to keep it within the union.

See the edit I made...

They could still pay to USA for upholding military protection.

By who?

The rest of the nation. Most won't admit it, but the resentment is there.

I was kidding :p

Good. In that case never mind. It's just annoying to hear something over and over again that (having a good understanding of plate tectonics, partly due to growing up in this state) I know is bullshit yet many people honestly think is fact.

The rest of the nation. Most won't admit it, but the resentment is there.

I'm too busy hating the large hairy mongrels from New York City and fat human howler monkeys from Philadelphia.

Well if California is the golden goose as far as states are concerned, I imagine the federal government will do anything necessary to keep it within the union.

And California will remain that golden goose much more so as part of the U.S. so they'd never want to secede anyway!

Really, this is ludicrous. The situation with the Confederacy back in the 1860s was entirely different. Back then economies were not so interdependent. They didn't rely on each other as much. No unified power lines, no serious rail lines...no highways...nothing that would have truly been jeopardized in THAT sense anywhere near as much. Both countries could have easily gotten along on their own.

But in today's world that simply cannot be done. Once you build the technological interdependencies they cannot be undone. Our economy, our technology, and our very way of LIFE RELIES upon our union. If that union is severed today it will harm everyone very, very gravely.

This discussion is thusly entirely pointless. It's not even a worthy alternate history scenario, not unless you want California to have not joined the union as a state but remain a separate country to begin with.

See the edit I made...

They could still pay to USA for upholding military protection.

Seems rather roundabout or pointless.

California breaks away to become an independent economic powerhouse. Then they pay massive amounts to the United States from being annexed.

What changed?

The rest of the nation. Most won't admit it, but the resentment is there.

I was a Californian for two years myself. While there might've been some people I didn't like on a personal basis, I see no reason to dislike people simply because they associate with California.

Really now, it's just a stupid thing to think, given it's the centre of the technology aspect of our economy as well as the centre of our entertainment industry.

See the edit I made...

They could still pay to USA for upholding military protection.

It would be quite a blow to the US economy. I think that at the very least they'd hike up the rates for the water and power we get from out of state. I really don't see how you guys think the US wouldn't invade California if we rebelled just because they felt it was necessary to hold onto all of the USA. The Civil War happened, after all. And I'm not sure that I'd say that the leadership of the national government is any smarter/better now.

I was a Californian for two years myself. While there might've been some people I didn't like on a personal basis, I see no reason to dislike people simply because they associate with California.

Really now, it's just a stupid thing to think, given it's the centre of the technology aspect of our economy as well as the centre of our entertainment industry.

You're probably atypical. How much of the US watches Fox News (as something other than sick comedy)? I'd say that portion has little love for this state.

It would be quite a blow to the US economy. I think that at the very least they'd hike up the rates for the water and power we get from out of state. I really don't see how you guys think the US wouldn't invade California if we rebelled just because they felt it was necessary to hold onto all of the USA. The Civil War happened, after all. And I'm not sure that I'd say that the leadership of the national government is any smarter/better now.

Global politics have changed.

Secondly, where does US federal government need the money? Considering a big chunk of the money taken from California goes back to California...Infact the only major independent expenditure - ie. expenditure not greatly affected by secession - is the defence budget.

Looking at Wiki the biggest federal expenditures are these:
$586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security
$548.8 billion (+9.0%) - Defense[2]
$394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare
$367.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare
$276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related

I'd be inclined to hazard a guess that for these expenses only defense is nowhere near +/- 0 dollars: The amount California pays to federal budget is roughly returned to California as social security, medicare, welfare, etc... if you were to exclude the defence costs.

Global politics have changed.

Secondly, where does US federal government need the money? Considering a big chunk of the money taken from California goes back to California...Infact the only major independent expenditure - ie. expenditure not greatly affected by secession - is the defence budget.

Looking at Wiki the biggest federal expenditures are these:
$586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security
$548.8 billion (+9.0%) - Defense[2]
$394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare
$367.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare
$276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related

I'd be inclined to hazard a guess that for these expenses only defense is nowhere near +/- 0 dollars: The amount California pays to federal budget is roughly returned to California as social security, medicare, welfare, etc... if you were to exclude the defence costs.


It's a known fact that California contributes more in taxes (not sure by how much, I think it's quite a bit) than we get back from the feds.

You're probably atypical. How much of the US watches Fox News (as something other than sick comedy)? I'd say that portion has little love for this state.
It still makes no sense though. But then I've also never understood the perception of San Francisco as a "gay city," so meh.

law of Medieval Ireland

They had informal law? I thought it was just not written down, but passed on verbatim by word of mouth? No different than the constitution, other than in medium.

It's a known fact that California contributes more in taxes (not sure by how much, I think it's quite a bit) than we get back from the feds.

Yes, and I'm inclined to guess the reason why you're paying more is the defence budget ie. that you're paying defence costs out of proportion.

I'm guessing that if an independent California would 'lease' military protection from USA the balance of federal government would be more or less equal to the balance of federal government now with only the absolute figures being smaller.

Yes, and I'm inclined to guess the reason why you're paying more is the defence budget ie. that you're paying defence costs out of proportion.

I'm guessing that if an independent California would 'lease' military protection from USA the balance of federal government would be more or less equal to the balance of federal government now with only the absolute figures being smaller.

An example with wild figures:

Let's say California is currently paying the federal government 200 billion dollars.

In return California is receiving 150 billion dollars in various government supports (see the expenditure list) with the extra 50 billion going to other poorer states and military expenditures.

After secession the independent California could lease a defence pact from USA with 50 billion dollars and receive military protection while the US federal government would still net the "extra" 50 billion$ from California.

Federal budget balance net change would be close to 0 dollars and there would be little economical reason to prevent California from seceding.

After a while California could start paying less, say at a rate of a billion$/year, while the rest of the USA would have decades to cope with the loss of California, ie. downsize military and refine other budgets to a smaller territory and population.

-el snip-

We could achieve the same increase nationally if we downsize the military altogether. Sorry, I'm a very old fashioned Republican.

Dear God man, do you know ANYTHING about de jure or de facto? Do you have a friggen clue about it at all? Here's a real world example for you. Taiwan is a de factor independent state. It seats its own government, passes its own laws, and doesn't listen to what the government in Beijing says. It is part of the People's Republic of China in a de jure sense and if you want to deal with China at all, you have to acknowledge that. So, yes, what the Constitution says has all the bearing in the world because if a state does break away and the US decides not to let it go, like the South during the Civil War, the US declares that the states are in rebellion and would forbid the outside world from interfering or recognizing that state, just like the South during the Civil War.

And the South did their damndest to get Britain and France into the war against the US. Nearly succeeded to. However, if people want to recognize California as an independent state, they can legally do so. France recognized us and sent military aide remember? Also, do not forget about the Armed Neutrality agreement that other nations agreed to to isolate Great Britain during that same war.

THAT is the bloody point. If California wants to break away, there is nothing in the Constitution to allow it to happen in a de jure sense without a bloody amendment or a constitutional convention. When American declared itself independent, Britain declared the colonies in rebellion against the crown. If Parliament decided to grand independence, it would take a bloody act of Parliament for that to happen to provide the legal framework.

Agreed.

He doesn't have to be in favor of it to recognize that it would happen.

i guess. but it would only happen if people thought it was what ought be done. since it clearly isn't what ought be done from any reasonable perspective, you can only think that it would happen because you believe the united states is an oppressive hell-hole. which, of course, forms an excellent reason to secede and renders any discussion about legality under the constitution completely moot even from within the constitution.

Because, that was the fucking question, or did you happen to not read that? Would it be legal for California to break off from the US. The answer is no.

except that the answer is yes. it is perfectly legal, as the only thing which could declare it illegal is no longer in effect over an independent california.

Dear God man, do you know ANYTHING about de jure or de facto? Do you have a friggen clue about it at all? Here's a real world example for you. Taiwan is a de factor independent state. It seats its own government, passes its own laws, and doesn't listen to what the government in Beijing says. It is part of the People's Republic of China in a de jure sense and if you want to deal with China at all, you have to acknowledge that. So, yes, what the Constitution says has all the bearing in the world because if a state does break away and the US decides not to let it go, like the South during the Civil War, the US declares that the states are in rebellion and would forbid the outside world from interfering or recognizing that state, just like the South during the Civil War.

THAT is the bloody point. If California wants to break away, there is nothing in the Constitution to allow it to happen in a de jure sense without a bloody amendment or a constitutional convention. When American declared itself independent, Britain declared the colonies in rebellion against the crown. If Parliament decided to grand independence, it would take a bloody act of Parliament for that to happen to provide the legal framework.

this still assumes the eternal transcendence of the former country's law. but it is not transcendent and therefore it doesn't matter what they say, their law doesn't apply. now, other countries may side with the former country on some level for various pragmatic concerns, but that does nothing to the actual concept at work. if the seceding state has setup its own laws and its own system of government after people there have legitimately decided to leave the old one, its independence can be nothing other than legal and legitimate, because law and government can only be based on the consent of the governed. the only standard that matters has been met, the system exists as a matter of law and of principle.


Yes, yes, yes, I'm sure you just love the anarchy and all that wonderful stuff. Via the revolution and everything, but the question was if there was a legal framework and there isn't. Your feelings about it are moot and completely missing the point. The question was not if it would be morally right for California to break away, nor if the US should allow it or not, but if it would be legal.

Well, sadly, the framers forgot to put such a clause in the Constitution. Why don't you write an amendment and send it off to Congress if you think we need one.

the point is that the rule of self-determination is more fundamental than the constitution. for the constitution to have ever been a valid document, that rule must be in effect. whether a constitution explicitly recognizes it, leaves it out, or explicitly denies it, that rule is always at work. and so no constitution can legally prevent people from seceding from it (provided they do so through a legitimate process, etc).

it is in fact your position which creates de facto rather than de jure rule, as it allows for completely illegitimate rule. in principle, the seceding state is independent, even after your tanks roll in to crush them. from then on they would be an occupied territory, but the legitimate rule would remain with the government consented to by the governed.

also, just in terms of the usian constitution, 9th amendment ftw.

to put it more generally, there is no possible valid law which can take away the right of self-determination. any law which purports to do so is illegitimate, and thus no law at all. the other option, if you don't accept this view of legitimation, amounts to the claim that laws are not important in any sense, as they hold no independent force at all. sure, something may be illegal, but so what? that provides no ought claim in itself. technically, there is a third option, but nobody worth talking to seriously holds it, because we know it is possible for legislatures to decree that those damn missourians over there are to be rounded up and shot en masse.

as i have been saying, the legality under the constitution is irrelevant, at best.

Except when you have more than one currency inside one country. Having one currency makes doing business easier between states AND nations.

That's why they had the gold standard, which was a universally recognized currency AND a protection against inflationist tyranny. (But the Constitution is biased towards inflationism for the sake of bankers, all throughout American history.)

I just stopped reading when I saw this. What do you want? A dictator? That is far more centralized than what you are advocating against. Or do you just want anarchy?

How open-minded. If I wanted a dictator, I would keep the Constitution in place, since it has proven its worth in eroding the rights of those under its jurisdiction through majoritarian dictatorship. And I am an anarchist, BTW, and proud of it.

They had informal law? I thought it was just not written down, but passed on verbatim by word of mouth? No different than the constitution, other than in medium.

Yeah, they had informal law. The king was not a monopolist on jurisdiction, but just paid a form of primitive insurance to the victims of crimes and then attempted to collect on the aggressor, like other early customary laws. And there was no constitution, because no guy just sat down and wrote up some laws; these laws evolved from countless interactions between individuals. There was no legislative law, which is basically what the Constitution is.

to put it more generally, there is no possible valid law which can take away the right of self-determination. any law which purports to do so is illegitimate, and thus no law at all.

Only if it is ruled Unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. It hasn't. Just the opposite.

as i have been saying, the legality under the constitution is irrelevant, at best.

Nice to know you do not care about Constitution.

Only if it is ruled Unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. It hasn't. Just the opposite.

no, self-determination is more fundamental than the constitution. ask yourself this - why did the constitution need to be ratified in order to go into effect? how is it possible that countries and states can scrap their constitutions and write new ones? on what principles does the very idea of constitutions rest?

That's why they had the gold standard, which was a universally recognized currency AND a protection against inflationist tyranny. (But the Constitution is biased towards inflationism for the sake of bankers, all throughout American history.)

You realize that this argument is entirely incorrect right? Currency still fluctuates among the different currencies even on the gold standard.

How open-minded. If I wanted a dictator, I would keep the Constitution in place, since it has proven its worth in eroding the rights of those under its jurisdiction through majoritarian dictatorship. And I am an anarchist, BTW, and proud of it.

Oh brother...:rolleyes:

no, self-determination is more fundamental than the constitution. ask yourself this - why did the constitution need to be ratified in order to go into effect? how is it possible that countries and states can scrap their constitutions and write new ones? on what principles does the very idea of constitutions rest?

I agree with you that natural law is the most fundamental law. No constitution can legally forbid a right given under natural law, and self determination is natural law. But practically speaking, do you believe the Union should have allowed the South to secede? Do you believe then that any group of people who wish to set up their own government should be allowed to?

Anyone know how the civil war and reconstruction are taught in schools in the South? I'm from California, and here we are taught that Lincoln was a great president and he did the right thing, bla bla bla. I'm curious to know how different if at all, the curriculum is in the South.

And as a Californian, I don't want to secede, and I don't know anyone who does.

But practically speaking, do you believe the Union should have allowed the South to secede? Do you believe then that any group of people who wish to set up their own government should be allowed to?

the southern secession was illegitimate because it wasn't done through an act of real self-determination. in fact, it was done specifically to oppress a significant portion of the population (an outright majority in a few states) into the indefinite future. but if it had been otherwise - if it had been more like the secession talk in the northeast earlier in that century, then yeah, definitely.

this isn't to say that everyone should just breakup over every minor problem - there are strong pragmatic concerns to be dealt with on any move like this. but on general principle, yes, any significant block of people that legitimately decides to associate differently must be allowed to do so. it is an absolutely vital requirement of liberty - there is no way that respects liberty to deny them the rights of free association and self-determination.

hey, does anyone care to show me exactly where in the articles of confederation states were allowed to withdraw from the government created by them and form a new one in its place? 'cause i looked and i didn't see it. N, does this mean that the constitution is illegal?

Well, what is a significant block then, and who decides where to draw the line? Is one state significant? A county, city, a family... why can't one person be allowed self determination? It is after all, a natural right.

Now, assume we do have a definition of a significant block, can society function if every block that wanted independence could have it? I bet there are hundreds, of blocks that if allowed to, would choose independence. Those groups demanding it now are doing so with the knowledge that they will be suppressed if they do. Imagine how many groups would demand it if they knew they would get it without a struggle.

As for the above poster, when all the constituents of a constitution decide that change is needed, then it is of course legal. All the states agreed that the articles of confederation just didn't work and sent delegates to form a new constitution (except perhaps Rhode Island, they love being different). All the states ratified the constitution, so there is no authority left to deem it illegal.

hey, does anyone care to show me exactly where in the articles of confederation states were allowed to withdraw from the government created by them and form a new one in its place? 'cause i looked and i didn't see it. N, does this mean that the constitution is illegal?

Some people have tried to argue that but there was nothing written that says that it could not be redone or abolished.

Some people have tried to argue that but there was nothing written that says that it could not be redone or abolished.

yeah, but that is just false. invioably observed, perpetual union, all changes need to be agreed to by congress first, its all there in black and white.

Well, what is a significant block then, and who decides where to draw the line? Is one state significant? A county, city, a family... why can't one person be allowed self determination? It is after all, a natural right.

a lone person cannot be an independent collective entity, by definition. as a first brush, i would say the smallest unit which can enact self-determination would be one of about the size and structure of the natural human social structure - the band.

Now, assume we do have a definition of a significant block, can society function if every block that wanted independence could have it? I bet there are hundreds, of blocks that if allowed to, would choose independence. Those groups demanding it now are doing so with the knowledge that they will be suppressed if they do. Imagine how many groups would demand it if they knew they would get it without a struggle.

i don't see why not. unless we assume people to be fundamentally insane, free association and self-determination would result in some sort of dynamic stability, as we moved to a situation where the number and type of independent entities reached a level that worked. if something wasn't working, why would people want to perpetuate it when they could easily do something else that might work better?

As for the above poster, when all the constituents of a constitution decide that change is needed, then it is of course legal. All the states agreed that the articles of confederation just didn't work and sent delegates to form a new constitution (except perhaps Rhode Island, they love being different). All the states ratified the constitution, so there is no authority left to deem it illegal.

except that the articles specifically outlawed what the constitution convention was attempting to do and the process by which the constitution declares that it can be ratified.

N's argument has been that secession isn't allowed for in the constitution, and thus must be illegal. but their own argument further implies that the constitution itself is (or at least was) illegal. which either means "omg noes!!! we have to go back to the articles!!!1!" or that legality under the former system is utterly irrelevant.

I don't think California would get very far without water. Seeing as how they are definitely a net importer of water for drinking and irrigation, they'd have to re-work the agreements that currently allow them to suck the Colorado River dry as one of the US states. Outside that, they'd have to renegotiate with the US and Mexico. I don't like their chances.

the southern secession was illegitimate because it wasn't done through an act of real self-determination. in fact, it was done specifically to oppress a significant portion of the population (an outright majority in a few states) into the indefinite future.

Slavery was not the motivating factor in the South's decision to leave the US. It was an important economic factor, but the various states seceded because they opposed what they perceived as federal encroachment on their sovereignty.

Lincoln is famously quoted as saying if maintaining slavery would keep the union together, he would support it. As it happened, he was later able to grab an opportunity to end slavery with the Emancipation Proclamation, but slavery was not why the federal government fought the war. As it was, many northerners supported the Southern effort because they, too, opposed the growing strength of the federal government, and many others were happy to be rid of the South.

Slavery was not the motivating factor in the South's decision to leave the US. It was an important economic factor, but the various states seceded because they opposed what they perceived as federal encroachment on their sovereignty.

read the declarations of secession. its all slavery, all the time. as georgia put it,

"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property..."

or to quote mississippi,
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

Nice to know you do not care about Constitution.

I have no idea why the idea of people not liking the Constitution so completely flabbergasts you.

You realize that this argument is entirely incorrect right? Currency still fluctuates among the different currencies even on the gold standard.

That's because they're not 100% gold standards- gold obviously couldn't fluctuate against itself. They are not valued in terms of a weight of gold but some other measure (like $1 dollar = 1 ounce of gold.) But then there is more paper than gold to back it up, and the currencies adjust (so that the paper which has relatively more gold to back it up becomes more valuable than the paper which has relatively less gold to back it up.)

Oh brother...:rolleyes:

Ah. The abbreviated form of all your arguments thus far.

read the declarations of secession. its all slavery, all the time. as georgia put it,

"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property..."

or to quote mississippi,
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

You're still missing the point. Again, slavery itself wasn't the issue. It was the right of the states to determine for themselves whether or not slavery, or any other matter, should be handled by the states or the federal government. States' rights was the issue; slavery was the excuse. THere would have been a clash sooner or later, regardless of slavery. THe differences in economy and culture were too profound, and conflict was inevitable.

N's argument has been that secession isn't allowed for in the constitution, and thus must be illegal. but their own argument further implies that the constitution itself is (or at least was) illegal. which either means "omg noes!!! we have to go back to the articles!!!1!" or that legality under the former system is utterly irrelevant.

But it would make the answer to the question 'no', wouldn't it?

You're still missing the point. Again, slavery itself wasn't the issue. It was the right of the states to determine for themselves whether or not slavery, or any other matter, should be handled by the states or the federal government. States' rights was the issue; slavery was the excuse. THere would have been a clash sooner or later, regardless of slavery. THe differences in economy and culture were too profound, and conflict was inevitable.

the differences were entirely over slavery - slavery was the issue. if it was states rights then they wouldn't have spent so much time (before and after leaving) whining about how those mean old northern states were passing laws refusing to return their runaway slaves. nope, when that happened they demanded that the federal government step in to restore their property. and that still wasn't enough for them, which is why this very issue gets mentioned in a number of the declarations of secession.

"states rights" is always used by southern states to mean "oppressing people of color"

California will not be independent in the near future. In the next 20-50 years when everything starts going to hell? Maybe.

I don't think there is a large movement to secede. It would not be able to win a war with the US in order to break away either.

It would not be able to win a war with the US in order to break away either.

why is this necessary?

why is this necessary?

For the same reason that we sought out help in the mid to late 1770s and what the South tried to do in the 1860s. For legitamacy.

why is this necessary?

Yeah, I don't see the US populace being too keen on waging war on California....

Yeah, I don't see the US populace being too keen on waging war on California....

Could you imagine what people would think with the internet buzzing with headlines like "US SOLDIERS MASSACRE CALIFORNIAN FAMILY" and "SACRAMENTO IN RUINS FROM US WARPLANES"?

For the same reason that we sought out help in the mid to late 1770s and what the South tried to do in the 1860s. For legitamacy.

So the legitimacy of a piece of paper is worth God knows how many lives?

How can they ever be independent?? THEY HAVE TO IMPORT WATER!! WATER!! The fact is the Californian economy is powerful because it is so completely intergrated with the US. If they were to declare independce, and the US declared an embargo, California would roll over and die. End of story.

But it would make the answer to the question 'no', wouldn't it?

maybe, but only in so far as the question is misguided. and why would one wish to answer misguided questions without also answering the more coherent question that is obviously intended?

Yeah, I don't see the US populace being too keen on waging war on California....

shit, the populace wasn't exactly keen on waging war on the south, and they actually attacked the US

If they were to declare independce, and the US declared an embargo

The one does not necessitate the other.

I'm pretty sure the Governator can pull it off if he's ever not too busy trying to take down John Connor.

Could you imagine what people would think with the internet buzzing with headlines like "US SOLDIERS MASSACRE CALIFORNIAN FAMILY" and "SACRAMENTO IN RUINS FROM US WARPLANES"?

It won't be any different if we let them go. The political fallout would be far worse than any political fallout in American History and we had some doozies.

So the legitimacy of a piece of paper is worth God knows how many lives?

Yes as we fought to maintain it in 1812, 1848 (though that was 100% provoked), 1861-65 (American Civil War), and numerous other adventures though most recently had nothing to do with defending American Freedom.

It won't be any different if we let them go. The political fallout would be far worse than any political fallout in American History and we had some doozies.

You think that the political fallout would be less from butchering hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people than it would from just letting them go? Carrying out such bloodshed in the name of the Constitution would be far more damaging to that piece of paper's moral power, through opposing the most basic natural right to one's life, than it would from allowing secession. It would cast its true tyrannical nature in sharp relief as being not a document of liberty but a shackle to state power.

Yes as we fought to maintain it in 1812, 1848 (though that was 100% provoked), 1861-65 (American Civil War), and numerous other adventures though most recently had nothing to do with defending American Freedom.

It is truly sad that you think some inanimate object's 'legitimacy' is more worthy of preservation than people's rights to their lives. It is through this kind of mystical devotion that that piece of paper will continually be used as a justification for progressively more statist interpretations, as it always has, until any remnant of liberty is scoured away for the sake of the political power of a few.

You think that the political fallout would be less from butchering hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people than it would from just letting them go? Carrying out such bloodshed in the name of the Constitution would be far more damaging to that piece of paper's moral power, through opposing the most basic natural right to one's life, than it would from allowing secession. It would cast its true tyrannical nature in sharp relief as being not a document of liberty but a shackle to state power.

Funny that. Let me ask you this! Should we have allowed the Confederate States to Secede all in the name of the Constitution? I mean let us look at this. 600,000 people died in the Civilian War. That was a decent chunk of people. I just forget the percentage it was of the population of the time.

It is truly sad that you think some inanimate object's 'legitimacy' is more worthy of preservation than people's rights to their lives. It is through this kind of mystical devotion that that piece of paper will continually be used as a justification for progressively more statist interpretations, as it always has, until any remnant of liberty is scoured away for the sake of the political power of a few.

You really need to get your head out of the clouds and really need to take off the glasses. It is obvious you do not know what you are talking about. The Constitution is about preserving liberty and not to destroy it.

Funny that. Let me ask you this! Should we have allowed the Confederate States to Secede all in the name of the Constitution?

FYI this is the 21st century.

Did Russia suddenly invade the seceded states of Soviet Union?

Did the Czech invade Slovakia?

What happened when Croatia or Slovenia declared independence?

etc..etc...

If the people of California want independence and it doesn't hurt a big portion of their citizens they're pretty much allowed to gain indepence in the eyes of international community.

In civilized world countries aren't made or broken by military force but by the will of the resident people, for example I'd wager that in the next 20 years Kosovo will first gain independence and later become part of Albania without a single shot fired (assuming there's no sectarian violence between the serbs and albanians of Kosovo). Another example is Palestine - If they manage to get a country for themselves it is not through any specific military might or independency of resources compared to Israel.

edit: The difficulty of secession does depend to a degree on the opposition of the mother nation and the attitude of the rest of the world - Though, why would the Land of the Free invade, blockade or bomb California for wanting to be free? :p

FYI this is the 21st century.

And your point?

Did Russia suddenly invade the seceded states of Soviet Union?

Did the Czech invade Slovakia?

What happened when Croatia or Slovenia declared independence?

Strawman.

If the people of California want independence and it doesn't hurt a big portion of their citizens they're pretty much allowed to gain indepence in the eyes of international community.

But not in the eyes of the United States Constitution. It is illegal for them to secede.

But not in the eyes of the United States Constitution. It is illegal for them to secede.

Why do people keep saying this as if it matters? If California gets to the point of leaving the union, I really doubt they care much about what federal law says at that point.

Why do people keep saying this as if it matters? If California gets to the point of leaving the union, I really doubt they care much about what federal law says at that point.

That would be correct. However, the US would still think California is wrong, and would proceed to force them back into the Union, just like they did to the Confederacy.

That would be correct. However, the US would still think California is wrong, and would proceed to force them back into the Union, just like they did to the Confederacy.

frankly I'm not too sure. Times have changed quite significantly since the 1850s. As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, in the last 20 or so years the world has seen several "illegal" divisions, but no wars sprung of it.

frankly I'm not too sure. Times have changed quite significantly since the 1850s. As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, in the last 20 or so years the world has seen several "illegal" divisions, but no wars sprung of it.

Yeah, and those splits were not one of the largest economies in the world splitting off from the largest economy, and the most powerful country. Do you think the US would let California go? On the issue of pride alone California would be invaded and bombed to kingdom come.

Yeah, and those splits were not one of the largest economies in the world splitting off from the largest economy, and the most powerful country.
Soviet Union was one of the most powerful countries.

Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan are among the most resource richest and biggest countries in the world.
Do you think the US would let California go? On the issue of pride alone California would be invaded and bombed to kingdom come.

While pride is important, economic success is more important.

If Californians wanted independence and rest of the *population* of USA wouldn't be willing to grant it then California could be put under economic blockade from continental USA. If rest of the population of USA would be "meh" about it then the trade and economic co-operation between the two big nations would be a great incentive *NOT* to bomb or invade California.

Besides, how could the US military control 30 million unwilling and armed subjects without resorting to total war? For comparison, Iraq has a population of less than third of that of California.

Soviet Union was one of the most powerful countries.

Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan are among the most resource richest and biggest countries in the world.


While pride is important, economic success is more important.

If Californians wanted independence and rest of the *population* of USA wouldn't be willing to grant it then California could be put under economic blockade from continental USA. If rest of the population of USA would be "meh" about it then the trade and economic co-operation between the two big nations would be a great incentive *NOT* to bomb or invade California.

Besides, how could the US military control 30 million unwilling and armed subjects without resorting to total war? For comparison, Iraq has a population of less than third of that of California.

Well for one there'd probably be a lot more volunteers to subdue California than Iraq. There would be real anger in the US over the issue. California is in the same hemisphere as the US, and even on the same continent! Logistics would be much easier.

A guerilla war in the mountains would be hell though. But aren't most Californians pot heads? They'll bee to stoned to fight! :p

Well for one there'd probably be a lot more volunteers to subdue California than Iraq. There would be real anger in the US over the issue. California is in the same hemisphere as the US, and even on the same continent! Logistics would be much easier.

A guerilla war in the mountains would be hell though. But aren't most Californians pot heads? They'll bee to stoned to fight! :p

My point is that you can't subjugate a population and get away with it in the Western world.

You can extort them by cutting off power and water supply...but look how well the rest of the world takes Israel's plans of collective punishment.

Attacking independent California would be a major political, economical and humanitarian error on a scale virtually unseen since the WW II - It would be the massive fuck up of the friggin' millennium.

My point is that you can't subjugate a population and get away with it in the Western world.

You can extort them by cutting off power and water supply...but look how well the rest of the world takes Israel's plans of collective punishment.

Attacking independent California would be a major political, economical and humanitarian error on a scale virtually unseen since the WW II - It would be the massive fuck up of the friggin' millennium.

since when did the US care what other countries thought?

lulz

Soviet Union was one of the most powerful countries.

Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan are among the most resource richest and biggest countries in the world.

Except for the fact that the Soviet Union voted to dissolve and let us not forget the bloody crackdown on those who wanted independence from them until they did vote to dissolve.

since when did the US care what other countries thought?

lulz

"Hur hur hur! The U.S. is a bunch of rednecks who'll just do whatever they want!" :rolleyes:

Bullshit. The United States cares a hell of a lot about what the world thinks, given how much trade we participate in. Is our foreign policy the best right now? Hardly, but even Bush's foreign policy doesn't ignore everyone on everything.

Corny: But the point is that they remained independent. The Czech Republic and Slovakia too remain independent from each other, and that was done voluntarily. There's also East Timor to consider.

In other words, there's plenty of precedent for independence in this modern world and it does need to be considered in such a situation. Of course as I outlined before there's no reason California would ever truly secede as all of the benefits are horribly outweighed by the negatives, but if you want to consider the scenario, you have to take into account the fact that in this day and age there is precedent for independence.

Corny: But the point is that they remained independent. The Czech Republic and Slovakia too remain independent from each other, and that was done voluntarily. There's also East Timor to consider.

Um...the Czech Republic and Slovakia both voted to be two separate nations. They dissolved Czechoslovakia to form the two nations under two different governments. And with East Timor, they were fighting a war that they lost and were annexed by Indonesia. It is only after a UN self-determination vote that they relinquished control. The point is...Indonesia let it go. The US would probably not let California go.

Um...the Czech Republic and Slovakia both voted to be two separate nations. They dissolved Czechoslovakia to form the two nations under two different governments. And with East Timor, they were fighting a war that they lost and were annexed by Indonesia. It is only after a UN self-determination vote that they relinquished control. The point is...Indonesia let it go. The US would probably not let California go.

Alright, so the precendant isn't as big as I thought.

Still, considering the backlash that would result from the U.S. invading The California Republic(or whatever the hell this new nation would call itself) would you advise such an invasion? Or would you let California go?

There are pros and cons to each possibility. Weigh them carefully before you respond.

Alright, so the precendant isn't as big as I thought.

Don't forget Norway separating from Sweden in 1905, Singapore from Malaysia in 1965, and Montenegro from Serbia in 2006

Don't forget Norway separating from Sweden in 1905, Singapore from Malaysia in 1965, and Montenegro from Serbia in 2006

...

Norway was part of Sweden?

The US would probably not let California go.

Actually, we almost certainly would.

And if we didn't, we wouldn't enforce our opposition.

Still, considering the backlash that would result from the U.S. invading The California Republic(or whatever the hell this new nation would call itself) would you advise such an invasion? Or would you let California go?

I'd engage to preserve the Union!

Why do people keep saying this as if it matters? If California gets to the point of leaving the union, I really doubt they care much about what federal law says at that point.

apparently because the constitution is the fundamental law of the universe, or something

I'd engage to preserve the Union!

So you'd happily kill and die to impose your country's rule upon a people who clearly don't want it?

Um... interesting....

...

Norway was part of Sweden?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_union_between_Norway_and_Sweden_in_1905

Funny that. Let me ask you this! Should we have allowed the Confederate States to Secede all in the name of the Constitution? I mean let us look at this. 600,000 people died in the Civilian War. That was a decent chunk of people. I just forget the percentage it was of the population of the time.

We should have allowed them to secede because it is aliberal to force anyone to remain in a political union. It would have been acceptable to force them in a peace settlement to manumit their slaves while maintaining political independence (which is what the South was willing to do at the Hampton Roads Peace Conference, and which the "Great Emancipator" refused.) But there is simply no reason why this piece of paper has any moral power whatsoever, and you have not given any reasoning to that point either.

You really need to get your head out of the clouds and really need to take off the glasses. It is obvious you do not know what you are talking about. The Constitution is about preserving liberty and not to destroy it.

Non-sequitur; just because you keep saying "The Constitution is freedom!" doesn't make it any more true. The Constitution was always about consolidating political power under one central government for the benefit of a few, as evidenced by the various special interests behind its drafting. Your devotion to this piece of paper is nothing short of mystical. Tell me; do you honestly believe Californians will be more free if they are murdered and maimed and have all of their worldly possessions destroyed by an invading and occupying army? Or do they have to be forced to be free?

I'd engage to preserve the Union!

Again, I am astonished at how much more you value a piece of paper over actual human life.

We should have allowed them to secede because it is aliberal to force anyone to remain in a political union. It would have been acceptable to force them in a peace settlement to manumit their slaves while maintaining political independence

Would not fly in the US and you and I both know it.

(which is what the South was willing to do at the Hampton Roads Peace Conference, and which the "Great Emancipator" refused.)

I would love to see a link to this.

But there is simply no reason why this piece of paper has any moral power whatsoever, and you have not given any reasoning to that point either.

And you have not given me any reason that it does not have any moral power. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

Here are some quotes for you to munch on:

The right to secede is deduced from the nature of the Constitution, which they [secessionists] say, is a compact between sovereign states who have preserved their whole sovereignty and are subject to no superior: that because they make the compact they can break it when their opinion has been departed from by other states...

The Constitution forms a government, not a league... Each state having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with other nations, a single nation, cannot from that period, possess any right to secede, because such succession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation... To say that any state may at pleasure secede from the union is to say that the United States is not a nation... Because the union was formed by a compact, it is said that the parties to that compact may, when they feel themselves aggrieved, depart from it; but it is precisely because it is a compact that they may not. A compact is a binding obligation.

It is the nature & essence of a compact that it is equally obligatory on the parties to it, and of course that no one of them can be liberated therefrom without the consent of the others, or such a violation or abuse of it by the others, as will amount to a dissolution of the compact...

Applying a like view of the subject to the case of the U. S. it results, that the compact being among individuals as imbodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself. The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect. It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure...

What would be the condition of the States attached to the Union & its Govt. and regarding both as essential to their well-being, if a State placed in the midst of them were to renounce its Federal obligations, and erect itself into an independent and alien nation? Could the States N. & S. of Virginia, Pennsyla. or N. York, or of some other States however small, remain associated and enjoy their present happiness, if geographically politically and practically thrown apart by such a breach in the chain which unites their interests and binds them together as neighbours & fellow citizens. It could not be. The innovation would be fatal to the Federal Governt. fatal to the Union, and fatal to the hopes of liberty and humanity; and presents a catastrophe at which all ought to shudder.

Under the constitution, the powers belonging to the federal government, whatever may be their extent, are just as sovereign as those of the States. The State governments are not the authors and creators of the national constitution. It does not derive its powers from them. They are preceding in point of time to the national sovereignty, but are postponed to it in point of supremacy by the will of the people. The powers of the national government are the great imperial powers by which nations are known to one another. It acts upon the people as the State governments act upon them. Its powers are given by the people, as those of the State governments are given. The national constitution was framed in the name of the people, and was ratified by the people as the State constitutions were. If the respective powers of these two governments interfere, those of the States must yield.

Let the thirteen States, bound together in a strict and indissoluble union, concur in erecting one great American system, superior to the control of all trans-atlantic force or influence, and able to dictate the terms of the connection between the old and the new world!

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/forums/ViewPost.aspx?ForumID=19&ID=6381

Again, I am astonished at how much more you value a piece of paper over actual human life.

I am a constitutionalist and I abide by it.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I live my life on this and any state that wants to secede from the Union is in violation of the Constitution of the United States.

I live my life on this and any state that wants to secede from the Union is in violation of the Constitution of the United States.

so let me get this straight. if california left, you would wish to carpet bomb san fransisco and roll tanks into san diego and install a military government in sacremento in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty? do you not see the slightest problem with this position of yours?

I am a constitutionalist and I abide by it.

No you're not. You've demonstrated on occassions to numerous to count that you only care what the constitution says when it agrees with you.

so let me get this straight. if california left, you would wish to carpet bomb san fransisco and roll tanks into san diego and install a military government in sacremento in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty? do you not see the slightest problem with this position of yours?

I love how you keep throwing the word carpet bombing out. First off all, no one is advocating carbet bombing California. I may not like San Francisco but do I want to see it destroyed? No. You can effectively cut off SF through a variety of means. So what are you refering to when you mean carbet bomb them?

As to everything else, yes. As to the last question, we did it with the South in 1865 and we can do it again. Only this time, make sure it is done correctly and not haphazardly as the South's reconstruction was done.