Yep. And I want to keep my national parks and forests and other federal lands if/when the Calexiters exit.
“Yep. And I want to keep my national parks and forests and other federal lands if/when the Calexiters exit.”
They ain’t yours, California can and should pay for the land. But we ain’t got a right to claim solverty over land we simply own but don’t live on or near.
That defis the most basic printable of self government that the sovereignty of any given land belongs to the people who live there.
To say otherwise would let distant California rule Chicago with whatever ridicules rules they might choose never having to live under them in Illinois.
The can have it. Lock, stock and barrel.
I know what you mean. I am a bit conflicted about this issue.
States are there for a reason—and I am more prone to having the federal government stay out of a state unless it is for a specific Constitutional purpose.
There may have been a time for the feds to control large portions of Nevada, Utah, California, etc. The nation was expanding and citizens moving out there needed protection.... but why should DC get to tell the people of Alaska, etc. what can be done on their land now?