Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

California Wants to Secede? Let's Help Them!
Townhall.com ^ | March 22, 2018 | Wayne Allyn Root

Posted on 03/22/2018 9:00:10 AM PDT by Kaslin

California is a part of America. But it’s no longer American. It is a foreign state. It is a fugitive state. The U.S. Constitution and the rule of law no longer apply in California. Call it, “The People’s Socialist Republic of California.” It’s a state without a country. But it’s certainly no longer American in any way.

Liberals in California want to secede. They are trying to put it on the ballot. They call it “Calexit.” I say, “Glory Hallelujah." Let’s help make it happen. I propose 63 million Trump voters join the team. Let's work 24/7 to turn their dream into a reality!

Millions of illegal aliens live in California; drive in California with official state-issued drivers’ licenses; and of course, use those licenses to vote in California. Millions. That’s precisely how Hillary won California by over 4 million votes.

California supports illegal aliens over legal, law-abiding American citizens. They support illegals getting free college tuition, while children of native-born Americans pay full fare. They support illegals over police and ICE. Many liberals in California want to abolish ICE. They want no borders and no immigration law.

The Attorney General of California has warned any business owner who cooperates with ICE will face prosecution by the state of California. You heard correctly. California will put the business owner in prison, for cooperating with federal law, to protect the criminal breaking the law.

The Mayor of Oakland famously played Paul Revere to warn illegal felons “ICE is coming. ICE is coming.” The Feds report over 800 felons evaded arrest because of that stunt. How many legal, law-abiding, native-born Americans will be robbed, raped, or murdered in the coming weeks because of that act of sedition?

A California judge just sided with the ACLU and barred LA County from enforcing gang restrictions that dramatically lowered crime. California has once again sided with hoodlums and gang-bangers over the law-abiding taxpayers.

In Oakland, a coffee shop prohibits employees from serving police, in order to create a “safe space” for their customers. Californians hate and distrust police more than illegal felons and thugs who speak no English and wear gang tattoos. Really.

All of this is sheer madness. But California has taken it to a whole new level.

Just this week the California Senate appointed the first-ever illegal alien to an official statewide post. Lizbeth Mateo, a 33-year old illegal alien-turned-attorney, will serve on the official state committee that doles out money to illegals attending college. In California, illegals now decide how taxpayer money is spent.

President Trump loves to brand (see "Crooked Hillary"). Let’s brand California. It’s not a “Sanctuary State.” It’s a “Fugitive State.” It’s a place that chooses to let felons and fugitives run free. It’s a place where the rights of criminals are far more important than protecting legal, law-abiding American citizens who pay taxes. We are the second class citizens in California.

Here’s the way to fix the problem. Liberal Californians want to secede. I'm joining the movement. How about you?

Conservatives should beg California to secede. We should make it easy for them. We should help pay for it. Pass the hat. Every conservative should chip in $20. I’ll throw $1000 to get the ball rolling.

Just think of elections. Without California, Trump and all future Republican presidential candidates would win, without breaking a sweat. Without California, we’d easily win the popular vote. And we'd win the electoral vote by a landslide.

Next think of Congress. California has 53 House seats. Democrats lead 39-14, for a net gain of 25 seats. Send California packing and the GOP gains a 25 House seat lead. We would dominate the House for decades to come.

And of course, the GOP would gain an automatic two seats in the Senate through the subtraction of California. As it stands now, those two U.S. Senate seats are deep blue Democrat forever. But if California secedes a 51-49 GOP lead instantly moves to 51-47.

If 63 million Trump voters just gave an average of $20 each to the "Calexit movement" that’s over $1.2 billion dollars. That’s enough money to help California secede, with enough left over as a down payment on building a wall…

with California.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: california
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 281-284 next last
To: FLT-bird
Secession and declaring independence are the exact same thing.

Not by a long shot - unless your notions of words and their meanings is entirely fluid.

The states did not surrender their sovereignty.....ever.

Yes they did - when they ratified the United States Constitution.

They DELEGATED (important word....it’s what a superior does with a subordinate) certain powers only to the federal government.

You're so close - and still wrong! The states (individual) didn't delegate anything - they lack the power to do so. The States (collective) delegated powers to the federal government through the constitution. That's because the States (collective) is the federal government!

The States (collective) delegated the power to control the disposition of the states (individual) to the federal government vis-à-vis Congress. Congress determines who joins - and who leaves. The Supreme Court articulated that in Texas v. White.

Yes, joining the union is voluntary. But it isn't like a magazine subscription - you can't just say "Today I feel dissatisfied" and quit. With membership comes commitment and responsibilities. But once you commit to joining the union you are bound to that commitment. The only two ways out are bilateral agreement or revolution.

You are apparently big on rebellion.

121 posted on 03/30/2018 7:48:04 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

The two words mean the same thing.

States did not surrender their sovereignty. They only delegated certain powers. Read the federalist papers. Specifically #46 though several others say the same thing. I am quoting Madison and Hamilton - the Constitution’s two biggest proponents when I use the term delegate and “limited powers” and describe the states as sovereign.

The states collectively are not the federal government. It is an entirely different entity.

States can leave if they wish. The union is voluntary and based on consent. That’s how it was founded. Might does not make right.

Trying to rely on Texas V White to support your argument is a joke. Did anybody expect them to rule against the federal government after it had just fought a bloody war? The justices of the court would not have survived 24 hours if they had ruled that way....never mind that Chief Justice Salmon P Chase issued the ruling that the then treasury secretary was entirely in the right......a certain Salmon P Chase. Yes! Look it up if you doubt it. This was just an ex pist facto “might makes right” attempt at justifying the unconstitutional war they had already started and fought at great cost.

You are apparently big on oppression and tyranny.


122 posted on 03/30/2018 8:13:39 AM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird

And yet it stands as settled law (unless of course you would like to mount a legal challenge to it). States enter the union via congress and must leave the same way.

The confeds tried it the other way and learned they warn’t might or right!


123 posted on 03/30/2018 8:23:28 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

Dred Scot was settled law at one time. So was Plessy vs Ferguson.

Might does not make right.


124 posted on 03/30/2018 8:31:46 AM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird

True enough - that’s why I included the invite to mount a challenge if you don’t like it. Right now it is the law. Ignore it at your peril.


125 posted on 03/30/2018 8:42:35 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird
Dred Scot was settled law at one time. So was Plessy vs Ferguson.

Hence the 14th Amendment and Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, et.al.

126 posted on 03/30/2018 8:48:41 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

Correct. So saying a Supreme Court ruling defines an issue forever and is always right and can never be disputed is simply false.


127 posted on 03/30/2018 8:54:59 AM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird
What you forget is that Virginia's ratification also included the words: "...in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, do by these presents assent to, and ratify the Constitution recommended on the seventeenth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven, by the Foederal Convention for the Government of the United States; hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern, that the said Constitution is binding upon the said People, according to an authentic copy hereto annexed..."

So the fact that Virginia added that disclaimer to her ratification document is meaningless if Virginia chose to resume those powers, i.e. secede, in a manner that was illegal under the Constitution she agreed to be bound by. As it happens, unilateral secession as practiced by the Confederate states was not legal. Madison said so long before the Southern rebellion. Chase said so in the Texas v. White decision after the rebellion was over.

128 posted on 03/30/2018 8:55:14 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

As I said, the fact that the Chase court ruled that might makes right is not very persuasive.


129 posted on 03/30/2018 8:56:06 AM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird
Neither is your opinion...
130 posted on 03/30/2018 8:58:26 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

The fact that a treaty or in this case was legally binding upon the citizens of the state in no way indicates that the state was agreeing to forever bind itself and surrender its sovereignty. Any law passed by the state government that does not conflict with the state constitution is binding upon the citizens.


131 posted on 03/30/2018 8:59:32 AM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

It’s not my opinion that three states expressly reserved the right to secede or that the power to prevent secession is nowhere granted to the federal government in the constitution.


132 posted on 03/30/2018 9:01:08 AM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird

That’s why it was called a “perpetual union” and later a “more perfect union” - because it was meant to be enduring (AKA permanent).

And yes - the states (individually) DID surrender a portion of their sovereignty when they became members of the union.


133 posted on 03/30/2018 9:03:18 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird

Then why do you keep mindlessly repeating it?!


134 posted on 03/30/2018 9:04:10 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird
Nobody at the time claimed a state did not have a right of unilateral secession.

James Madison did, among others.

135 posted on 03/30/2018 9:08:17 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

They hoped it would be enduring. Hoped. It was an experiment. A more perfect union means “better”. They hoped the constitution would improve things.

The states DELEGATED a portion of their sovereignty only...the enumerated powers and no more. They reserved all others and specifically reserved a right to secede.


136 posted on 03/30/2018 9:10:19 AM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird
Since nowhere in the US constitution is the power to prevent secession by a member state granted to the federal government, that is one of the powers reserved by the states.

The power to admit states is a power reserved to the federal government. Once allowed to join, the power to approve any combining of states, splitting of states, or changing the border of a state by a fraction of an inch is a power reserved to the federal government. Since the federal government approves every other change then the power to approve a state leaving altogether is certainly implied. Or, if you prefer, a power reserved to the states as expressed through a vote in Congress.

137 posted on 03/30/2018 9:11:28 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

Not at the time. He only said that in the 1820s.....he never claimed the ratifications were defective because states reserved the right to secede at the time.

In any event, he was not one of the parties to the compact. The states were and they made their intent quite clear at the time of ratification.


138 posted on 03/30/2018 9:12:42 AM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird
Btw, you do realize what the colonies did was secession right? They declared independence. That’s secession.

Of course the did. That's why it's called the "American Secession" or the "Secessionary War".

The colonies didn't walk out. They fought their way out. That's rebellion.

139 posted on 03/30/2018 9:13:33 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

Why do you keep mindlessly claiming states did not reserve that right when they clearly did?


140 posted on 03/30/2018 9:13:47 AM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 281-284 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson