Lynyrd wrote:
I think you need to read more closely. He specifically said "do not confuse what might be right, God-given or otherwise, with what is legal.
Search found 6 matches
Re: Calexit
Re: Calexit
As an intellectual and moral matter, the rights to self-government, free speech, self-defense, etc are based on the notion they are inherent to our existence and given by God.
As a practical matter, they are based on violence, on the use of force -- the Founding Fathers and the Continental Army and militias beat the British. There was no "legal" basis for us to separate -- King George III and his government wanted to hang our forefathers as traitors, and he would have been quite "legal" in doing so. Having created a separation -- a secession -- by force, we created a new legal basis among ourselves and agreed to abide by it. (For that matter, all law is ultimately about violence, the legal system simply adjudicates who gets to do "legal" violence to whom, and for what reasons). Ultimately there was a treaty signed between Britain and the confederation of American states -- I suppose that could be said to be a "legal" basis, but it was ratification of a secession already established by force.
The US Constitution and the laws derived from it (and the laws not derived from it!) do not provide for dismantling the US --there is no "legal" way to secede, there is no mechanism that via constitutional article nor legal statute provides for secession.
Do not confuse what might be "right", God-given or otherwise, with what is "legal." We try to get them to overlap, but they are not always 100% congruent.
As a practical matter, they are based on violence, on the use of force -- the Founding Fathers and the Continental Army and militias beat the British. There was no "legal" basis for us to separate -- King George III and his government wanted to hang our forefathers as traitors, and he would have been quite "legal" in doing so. Having created a separation -- a secession -- by force, we created a new legal basis among ourselves and agreed to abide by it. (For that matter, all law is ultimately about violence, the legal system simply adjudicates who gets to do "legal" violence to whom, and for what reasons). Ultimately there was a treaty signed between Britain and the confederation of American states -- I suppose that could be said to be a "legal" basis, but it was ratification of a secession already established by force.
The US Constitution and the laws derived from it (and the laws not derived from it!) do not provide for dismantling the US --there is no "legal" way to secede, there is no mechanism that via constitutional article nor legal statute provides for secession.
Do not confuse what might be "right", God-given or otherwise, with what is "legal." We try to get them to overlap, but they are not always 100% congruent.
Re: Calexit
Your examples refute you.
The Declaration of Independence certainly was not a legal procedure in the legal system it was written under -- it was a declaration of rebellion. 1776, 1836, and 1861, were all examples of rebellion against the legal authority. None of them were done according to the rules of the legal system that was in force, and those systems did not have any legal procedure for seceding. Just like there is no legal means in the US Constitution.
Secession is certainly a political act, and act of power, and you can claim the right to do so, but it is not in any sense legal. You have to make it stick, to have enough power to do so. In 1776 and 1836, the rebels were able to muster the political and military power to make it happen.
The Confederate States of America could not muster that power, and the result put paid to the notion that one can legally secede from the US. That's not to say it can't or won't happen in the future, but it won't be "legal" unless the Constitution is amended.
The Declaration of Independence certainly was not a legal procedure in the legal system it was written under -- it was a declaration of rebellion. 1776, 1836, and 1861, were all examples of rebellion against the legal authority. None of them were done according to the rules of the legal system that was in force, and those systems did not have any legal procedure for seceding. Just like there is no legal means in the US Constitution.
Secession is certainly a political act, and act of power, and you can claim the right to do so, but it is not in any sense legal. You have to make it stick, to have enough power to do so. In 1776 and 1836, the rebels were able to muster the political and military power to make it happen.
The Confederate States of America could not muster that power, and the result put paid to the notion that one can legally secede from the US. That's not to say it can't or won't happen in the future, but it won't be "legal" unless the Constitution is amended.
Re: Calexit
Not true. Texas has no more powers than any other state. And maybe has less. The annexation agreement that brought Texas into the Union limited the maximum number of states that Texas could be divided into (5) - no other state has a limit on it like that.JustSomeOldGuy wrote:Cherry picking select quotes/topics from Tucker Carlson's interview of the liberal talking head from California;
Lastly, Texas is the only entity that has a legal right to secede, ...
As to legality, there is no legal mechanism to secede from the US. If a state announces it has "seceded" then the result will either be acquiescence or war. Last time there was war.
Re: Calexit
They will still be hurting, plus they import a large part of their energy as well (which they manage like numbskulls). And unlike Texas, their energy grid is not set up to be physically controlled and separated at the state level-- it is part of the western grid.Redneck_Buddha wrote:I think the 15 feet of snow this winter has alleviated their water issues...for now.TxRVer wrote:Doesn't California pipe a lot of water from out of state?
Re: Calexit
My wish is that they'd vote to go, we'd let them go, and then their massive debt and promises to all the unions would crush them financially, with no possibility of help from Uncle Sam. Then we'd take them back over as a clean slate, a territory, let them reapply to be a state, reestablish government, require that they respect the 2A and balance their budget, etc . Unfortunately I don't think any of those things will happen.
But they will crater financially. I hope it's during The Donald's term - but not until his second one. Would take too much energy away from the good things that can be done now. I'm thinking he is probably the only President who would have enough spine to tell California's government and unions that Uncle Sugar will not bail them out, they will just have to go broke. This will require the Republicans to maintain the House and the Senate, but it will take someone like Trump to provide the backbone needed to tell Cali (and Chicago, and Detroit, etc) NO.
But they will crater financially. I hope it's during The Donald's term - but not until his second one. Would take too much energy away from the good things that can be done now. I'm thinking he is probably the only President who would have enough spine to tell California's government and unions that Uncle Sugar will not bail them out, they will just have to go broke. This will require the Republicans to maintain the House and the Senate, but it will take someone like Trump to provide the backbone needed to tell Cali (and Chicago, and Detroit, etc) NO.