He would fit right in that group.

Makes me think of a doofus politician who would be in cahoots with Mr. Thompson in Atlas Shrugged.

Yep. That scene near the car factory where Ms. Taggart asks that lady how old she is...

His family started Dayton-Hudson that became
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.

Me dino finds your aggressive growls appealing.

Waste them all! Too many Kali plates on cars(not rentals) in Northern Az. Must stem the flow of Kali refugee's. Besides, they don't know how to drive here they're a menace to to the State of Gun! Now,if I can find instructions on building a EMP generator projector I would knock out the Kali progressive cars.

Don't think Trump has given up but it seems all the air has blown out of the balloon for now.
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.

I for one wouldn't give up on repealing the Obama care monstrosity! Keep after the clowns (like McCain et al) and don't give them a moment of peace until that thing is gone! Now is not the time for half measures that the Establishment wants but rather there is an over arching need to repeal it and let the chips fall where they may. give a year or two to do this so that a suitable approach (private sector) can be worked out.

The failed repeal of Obamacare makes it look like there is no way to drain the swamp.
Don't go away mad, swamp. Just go away.

Out of the frying pan and into the fire...

Then DC should go with CA, or the tree of liberty will continue to wither and die.

AS had those . . .

Considering those who Kalifornians elect, such as Moonbeam, Nutty Nancy and Mad Max, the majority probably are that dumb.
Don't think they are smart enough to really pull off that ultimate act of stupidity, though.

That was not nitpicking at all but rather an eloquent encapsulation of the framers intent on both documents. The Declaration of Independence does cover most of the issues surrounding this post.

In closing, thank you for taking the time to effectively frame your arguments and help clarify the issue. It is appreciated!

I'm going to nitpick here a bit, though I appreciate your cogent arguments.

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.

What kills me is that I'm regularly seeing homeless women around town. That tears me up...

Adios, Kalifornia! Support all those illegals on your own dime. Forget all those government bailouts for your companies and green cams. NO more job for Pelosi or Maxine, no jet travel, no special interest money form taxpayers of the real USA! Want to sell to theUSA, watch for tariffs. No Medicaid. No military protection. Goodbye military base revenue. Got a natural disaster, sorry, your problem. Maybe the UN will come in and take you over, since you liberals love to be controlled. North Korea missile reaches you, too bad.
Are these folks really this dumb, tehy can't reason. I hope so.

SCOTUS has been an "activist" court for years and has far exceeded its charter (which is to interpret the law and not to provide defacto legislation).

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!

Unfortunately for California, it is they who are out of control and without rationality therefore, also out of step with the rest of the country.

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!

As for working out their own currency, that would be a benefit to them. The problems that we (in all 50 states) have is that the Federal Reserve (neither Federal, nor a real Reserve) prints our "Fiat" money with little is anything behind it. Kalifornia (sic) would be able to determine their own currency and what would be its underpinnings as far as value goes. That would be a blessing because it would put a natural check and balance on the printing of more "worthless" money because they would now need to trade with the world based upon their own assets.

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!

Actually, if you look at the details of the White vs Texas ruling, it's not about constitutionality but a state's fiscal responsibility under contract law. By the same token, California's responsibility to other states would be the biggest impediment to secession. Water and power contracts were undertaken with the help of federal monies, and are long term (a decade or more to fix the price), so the price tag is billions of dollars. Contract law among the states takes precedence over any arbitrary decision by the state's residents.

Actually, under Federalism, secession was an implied safeguard. The sovereignty of the states was guaranteed. Under the 10th amendment, that was also the case because if it were not expressly covered in the US Constitution, the powers belonged to the states. Simple even though the niceties of everything being spelled out in the law (or a law/guideline), the issues that remain (I.e., Federal bases or institutions) could be negotiated afterwards including clearing of debt, etc.

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!

Good one!

So Dayton is a moocher's delight.

LOL