Kalifornia Is Closer To Secession
And all because The Evil Hag got beat by The Perpetual Bad Hair Day. Sheesh!
I suppose if Bolsheviki Bernie wins next time Kalifornia would clamor to rejoin the Union.
Whoa! New thought. Without Kalifornia, I doubt Bernie would have any hope of winning at all. Yeah, don't go away mad, Kalifornia! Just go away! Buh-bye! Buh-bye!
In the article (sorry for the yucky ads), CalExit (whose obviously coo-coo founder has emigrated to Russia)~harrumph!~KalExit spokesman Marcus Ruiz Evans (psst, he's still here) said, speaking of Bad Hair, "So what kind of people elect a man like that? The answer: not Kalifornians."
Yep, supporters of the so obviously corrupt Evil Hag~even after Bernie got weaseled out of the Jackass Party contest.
Evans believes Kalifornia "as the 5th largest economy in the world, will be just fine on its own."
http://californiapolicycenter.org/can...
Yep, lunatics running the asylum has always worked out.
Me dino believes the krazies of Kalifornia will all sink like a stone without the Big One shaking it down.
Plenty of looters and moochers will be taking care of that.
I suppose if Bolsheviki Bernie wins next time Kalifornia would clamor to rejoin the Union.
Whoa! New thought. Without Kalifornia, I doubt Bernie would have any hope of winning at all. Yeah, don't go away mad, Kalifornia! Just go away! Buh-bye! Buh-bye!
In the article (sorry for the yucky ads), CalExit (whose obviously coo-coo founder has emigrated to Russia)~harrumph!~KalExit spokesman Marcus Ruiz Evans (psst, he's still here) said, speaking of Bad Hair, "So what kind of people elect a man like that? The answer: not Kalifornians."
Yep, supporters of the so obviously corrupt Evil Hag~even after Bernie got weaseled out of the Jackass Party contest.
Evans believes Kalifornia "as the 5th largest economy in the world, will be just fine on its own."
http://californiapolicycenter.org/can...
Yep, lunatics running the asylum has always worked out.
Me dino believes the krazies of Kalifornia will all sink like a stone without the Big One shaking it down.
Plenty of looters and moochers will be taking care of that.
10th Amendment. Any power not given to the fedgov is reserved as a power of the state. Secession was never mentioned. As with the civil war, the fedgov has no authority to force a state to participate.
The fedgov is so far beyond its mandate that it needs to be severely pruned to fit back in its plant pot.
With regards to the Tenth Amendment, I would point out that it (the Tenth Amendment) only sets up jurisdictional boundaries for which powers are granted to the Federal Government and which ones are reserved for the States to act upon. The problem with your interpretation that a valid law can not nullify itself. If the Tenth Amendment is to be interpreted as reserving the right to secede to the States, it nullifies itself because secession voids the very relationship that gives any and all meaning to the Tenth Amendment in the first place. If one wants to give precedent for secession, one would be on much stronger legal footing to cite the Declaration of Independence itself rather than the Tenth Amendment. Of course that means that one has to come up with a list of justifiable complaints such as the seventeen listed in the Declaration.
As in any contract, the devil is in the details however all can be remedied if the point is pushed. The risk (as always) is that a repeat of the Civil War could ensue if the Constitution is truly considered "dead" and the powers that be in Washington deem it so. If that is the case, then we are all at great risk and Federalism as envisioned by the framers does not exist. Truth be told!
Under the Articles of Confederation, one can find significant support for the argument that each State was truly sovereign. Under the Constitution, however, some very key elements of sovereignty were specifically ceded to the Federal Government - namely the rights to entertain treaties, set immigration laws, and oversee national defense (though admittedly at that point the defense forces still primarily relied on State militias). The States from the point of ratification of the Constitution were not sovereign at all, but subordinate to the Federal Government. They entered into a contract by virtue of signing the Constitution that was not only a contract between a State and other States, but between a State and the newly-created Federal Government which was being expressly delegated key powers only exercised by sovereign nation-states. That the Federal Government was to factor prominently and hold authoritative power over the States was specifically laid out in the Supremacy Clause.
Given that these key provisions critical to actual sovereignty were express provisions of the Constitution, they would have been exempt from any claim of exercise by a State referring to the Tenth Amendment under any reasonable interpretation. Yet without these powers, one can not truly be called sovereign. Thus I find the argument that the Tenth Amendment reserves the power of secession to be unconvincing. To me, the far more convincing argument lies in the Declaration of Independence itself when it states in the first paragraph:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
"As in any contract, the devil is in the details however all can be remedied if the point is pushed."
Precisely. It will heavily depend on whether or not both sides really want to negotiate a deal and whether or not the one party is going to recognize the independent will of the other. Those were certainly crucial elements in the evolution of the Civil War precisely because they are not defined explicitly in the Constitution.
In closing, thank you for taking the time to effectively frame your arguments and help clarify the issue. It is appreciated!
Puff, the magic dragon lived by the left coast sea . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Mead
This would be a positive thing (some that the Federal government should start doing as well). The idea might not be as hair-brained as one might think. Besides that action could also spawn a movement for secession within the state itself for those regions that may be more conservative or more willing to cast their lot with the US as opposed to going it on their own. Free will! That will determine what transpires there. As for the rest of the country, there are so many states that would love to see "Kalifornia" leave and become a burden onto themselves as opposed to pushing politics on the rest of us! For what its worth!
Does the San Francisco Mint still exist? If not, the Carson City, NV mint still does. They would have to contract for real coinage. But again, the majority are too misinformed to understand real coinage.
As much as I would love to see Kalifornia secede, they never will because the Democrat party needs its electoral votes.
My Bama night clubbing days are over for the old dino, but I can recall many a time when someone with a microphone ends a sentence by proclaiming "~and the south shall rise again!" and everybody yells "Yay!"
US military would be hard pressed to find recruits.
Traditionally, we could thank god for the Sierra Nevada, that incredibly powerful rain shadow, but used to also be a people shadow from the other side of the hill. But that is falling apart as the slightly less indoctrinated flee the PRK.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbU3z...
The All-Inclusive Red State South shall rise again?
Nah!
The data MikeMarotta posted from the Hoover Institution says it's 28.8% Democrat, 25.5% Republican, and 36% independent. When they offered "R/D leaning" options, it was 36.4% Democrat, 37.7% Republican, 22.9% independent, and 3.0% other.
I do not think they asked the independents if they usually vote Democrat or Republican.
If that data is right, people in the military do not overwhelmingly support one party or the other.
I don't see either party or any mainstream politicians even remotely critical of people serving in the Armed Forces. I have seen nothing remotely like that in my life.
The old saying was Republicans want to fund the military but not use it, and Democrats want to use the military but not fund it. If that were still true, that would point to Republicans being more popular with the military because I imagine they like funding and don't like war. That saying seems no longer true after President Bush attacked Iraq and began using drones to attack suspects who would be difficult to arrest. President Obama continued the policy and increased it.
Now it seems like both parties say they want to fund the military but only for defense and not to get into wars. But both parties actually do get us into wars and use the military to attack hard-to-capture suspects.
President Obama said it outright in response to some foreign development, I think it was the Syrian Civil War, that part of "American Exceptionalism" is the US is the only country able to project power around the globe, so US need to get involved militarily. It was an odd use of American Exceptionalism, which to me means something completely different.
I'm sure if you ask the parties they'll say they are light-years apart on this, but I do not see it one bit.
PS - President Obama specifically denied the notion of "American Exceptionalism" - especially while on his Apology Tour immediately following his first election. In fact, he railed about "military imperialism" as he saw it as exercised by both the US and Britain in his book Dreams of My Father.
One last note: I am currently reading Winston Churchill's six-volume history of the Second World War. What is interesting is that in the first book he goes into great detail about the groundwork laid for it since the end of the First World War in which he very squarely criticized all three major parties in his government - including his own Conservative Party - for being willing to disarm "to further peace" while allowing hostile regimes to build their forces and abrogate their treaty agreements in a move of appeasement. This has been one of the ongoing platforms of Democratic policy since at least the Vietnam War. Obama's appeasement policy towards Islam resulted in the formation and growth of ISIS and the resulting destabilization in the Middle East. As time goes on, I would put good money on Obama being the next Neville Chamberlain, and it will be his appeasement of Russia that will be his legacy.
California and the Northeastern states all subscribe to the same irrational politics (see by their various rankings, especially in negative areas). There are far more "Red" states if you will who still believe in the US Constitution and are willing to work within its framework. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of California (and some of the NE "blue" states). Therefore, since California is the one that is talking about secession, then so be it and good luck to them!
So, as to your "CA should stay while the "red" states leave" is probably less in the card then is CA cutting and running. Truth be told!
Don't go away mad, swamp. Just go away.
Maybe someone will blow it back up again.
Don't think the clowns really care as long as insurance companies donate big money toward their reelection.
The problem rests with sleepy misled sheeple who cast votes.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Each state as an independent entity has the authority to act on in its own, its people's, best interests. Because the Constitution doesn't grant such power to the fedgov it remains a power of each State, and each States people. Permission to depart is not needed except by the people of a State.
Since the court has been "Extra Constitutional" for years, one could expect such a ruling. However, with that being said, if the court were to get back to its charter by providing rulings base upon "Original" intent, there would be far fewer bad outcomes under the color of law than we have now. We would also not be discussing the subversion of the intent of the Contstitution.
It seems that we always get ourselves into trouble when SCOTUS starts writing law instead of interpreting it. The problems crop up down the road whereas SJs actually contradict their own rulings on many occasions, especially when ruling on the "Bill of Rights" or the first 10 Amendments. It would be entertaining seeing this phenomenon if it didn't have such dire consequences on our lives. All many of these rulings do is create job security for lawyers!
Or why I was desperate to see the Evil Hag get beat.
Wonderful...............that would be great !!!!!!!!!!!
Just as they A is K think a People's Republic of Kalifornia can achieve a socialist utopian paradise.
You know, how that worked out for the Soviet Union.
Buenos noches .
First thing I found was Gov Dayton having similar symptoms with the Evil Hag.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKcSp...
The Observer quotes "a source close to the governor" as saying, "Look, who do you think wins when a N.J. real estate mogul negotiates with a Midwestern governor?" And the passages about Dayton don't get any more positive from there.
Governor Dayton is an heir from the family that started Target. A recovering alcoholic whose erratic behavior earned him an article in Time titled "The Blunderer" and a spot on the magazine's Five Worst Senators list, Dayton is an enigmatic figure in the Wilf story.
One person who knows the governor well and was a bit behind him at the elite Blake School says that the governor's whole life has been a mission to prove he's not the upper-crust wuss people assume him to be from his breeding and manner. Indeed, even Governor Dayton's official bio page is peppered with exclamation points and Uncle Rico style nostalgia for the days of hockey glory and teaching in the New York City public schools.
"You've got this guy who was a star athlete--best senior goalie in a hockey-mad state. But his behavior in the Senate was so bizarre ..."--Dayton once shut his office citing a vague "terrorist threat" and gave himself an F for his undistinguished single term in Washington--"that he wanted to come home and fix this image of himself as an ineffective weirdo."
According to one Minneapolis businessman who knows Governor Dayton personally and is close to the governor's ex-wife (Alida Rockefeller, the youngest daughter of John D. Rockefeller) and their sons, Eric and Andrew, who operate a popular restaurant in the city and a men's boutique: "Dayton is a swell guy, but he's just awkward in his own skin and never really thought he'd be governor. Now everyone's mad at him, because he's raised taxes, and he wants to be loved so he's full-bore on this stadium. He doesn't want to be known as the governor who lost the Vikings to L.A."
Many moochers and gang bangers from Chicago
That Moved to the twin cities. Like most dem states a few counties dominate the rest of the state.
Target Corp.
He inherited multi-millions , married and was divorced by a Rockefeller.
He never learned that hard work ove ring value for value created wealth.
He claimed to be a champion for the poor and pushes for all the policies that are failures to those folk.
https://youtu.be/7CUFE551BGY.
Are these folks really this dumb, tehy can't reason. I hope so.
Don't think they are smart enough to really pull off that ultimate act of stupidity, though.
Now it's Kalifornia's turn.
I'l bet the secession lasts less than Scaramucci.
Secession always looks good to those who put their own terms, rather than reality's terms, on it... Look at the whole State of Jefferson movement (in Northern California, BTW)... It's pie in the sky to think they can survive, somehow, surrounded by blue states and with not much other than federal support (at LEAST until they rebuild some kind of infrastructure, which may take years if not decades) , but the reality is this part of the state, while red as cherries, is rife with unemployment, no industry since the 1960's (or maybe 70's, certainly not now), and nothing but political rhetoric and a sketchy economic plan to make it work.
California is in much the same boat, but for different reasons - the Calisecessionists think somehow the magical dotgov will pay their way (even without the dotgov), they think they can tax an already hyper-overtaxed populous and keep milking that puppy dry, somehow businesses will flock TO the new People's Republic of Nuts, eager to pay higher taxes (yeah, right)...
Combining this west coast disaster, if the PRC secedes, the Jeffersonians swear they will secede from the Brownian/Newsomian Kingdom of Nuts to become a state again... Of course, the one resource they have in abundance - water - is controlled by the US Gov, who can make a trade deal with the Nation of Nut, and still sell out the water to them. Timber is so poorly managed that we have entire bare sections of land that are overgrown in Manzanita (which, IIRC, isn't used for much except bird perches and forest fire fuel...)
No one involved in any of this has the least basis in reality, and so far, all are living in a fantasy world where their wishes come true, blind to the fact that it takes work to make things work... it doesn't magically appear like manna from the sky.
And no one - not the techies who want to secede, to the Tea-party conservatives in Jeff, can explain how they plan on making it work, instead appealing to mob acceptance - rather than reality. And living in the Kingdom of Nut, and the State of Jeff, we're rightly worried that whatever happens, we're on the brown end of the otherwise clean stick...
It was especially during President Jimmy Carter's lefty reign of ineptitude did I hear several conservatives say they were going to move to Australia.
They never went.
They wouldn't like it now with that gun ban anyway.
I'm just curious.
I know what I wrote looks crazy but anything Kalifornia is not about any sort of sanity.
Jerry Brown runs around the globe negotiating his own trade and climate deals. Single Payer was working it's way through until they hit the $400 billion cost estimate for the first year. Their expansion of Medicaid to 14 million people that don't pay a penny for it, it seems, is quite expensive.
We also have the State of Jefferson, much better organized, also working to get on the next ballot - that would split the state with the dividing line just north of Sacramento (and I think I would be in that count - I'm in Placer County, not sure where the boundary is).
The new state, Jefferson, would be very pro-gun, pro-liberty, and pro-patriots. For an idea, California is only 1% veteran, but almost 9% here in Placer. Definitely re-open elk hunting too ;)
I thought the Jeffersonians had zero chance, but if Calexit gets more popular, this would easily pass.
People are people indeed~even if they were still using typewriters and smoking up a storm in public places like restaurants.
Anymore...I really feel like an outsider here. If I'm one of the smartest guys in the room we're in serious trouble...
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
The Big Brother elites of both parties can't afford uppity states who want even a partial independence of any kind.
Resistance is futile against the Borg. Total control is required. Or else.
You think there's too many RINOs now? Just watch honorable GOP statesmen turn into craven chicken RINOs when push becomes shove.
"It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."
- Samuel Adams
But no-oh! We had to Endowment For The Arts, Planned Parenthood, food stamps, climate change funding, welfare and countless etcs provide us and our children with this reap what you unnecessary gargantuan load of BS~
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Load more comments...