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.
You all always breeze right by that "and having the power" part and go straight to the "form a new one that suits them better". The Southern states may have had the inclination. They certainly did rise up and try to shake off the existing government. But, alas, they lacked the power to do so.
It is enduring. It survived the slaver’s attempt to scuttle it. As an experiment I would say “So far so good!”
Chase ruled that leaving the Union was possible only through rebellion or with the consent of the other states. No "might makes right" in the decision anywhere.
No it is not. Nowhere in the constitution is it written that the federal government was given the power by the states to prevent states from seceding. The federal govt also does not have the power to make a state from the land of an existing state. That is expressly forbidden in the constitution. The power to prevent secession is nowhere implied in the constitution. Quite the contrary. Had it been clearly stated that the federal government had the right to use military force to prevent a state from leaving, not a single state would have ratified the constitution.
They had just fought a bloody and long war to gain their independence. They were not eager to give that up
They declared themselves independent. That’s Secession.
Where do you get the "treaty" malarkey? It wasn't a treaty. The states ratified the Constitution. They didn't form an alliance. They agreed to be bound by the Constitution, regardless of any misconceptions they may have had about what they could and could not do.
I recognize that some states included signing statements in their ratification documents but I assert that those statements hold no force of law. That is different than what you claim I have said.
Breeze right by what? Representative Lincoln thought secession a noble principle to liberate the world. This was entirely in keeping with a country born of secession from a larger political entity they did not think served them very well.
Might does not make right....oh and both sides had slavery.
The Constitution enumerates powers to Congress to determine the disposition of states.
They delegated every power that made them a sovereign entity. Can states deal directly with foreign powers? Nope. Can they decide what form of government they want? Nope. Can they form their own currency? Nope. Can they tax their own imports? Nope. Can they make alliances with other states? Nope. Can they raise their own army and navy? Nope. Everything that makes a sovereign entity a sovereign entity was "delegated" to some other authority. So if you have a mass of land that cannot govern itself without approval, cannot issue its own currency, cannot control its borders, cannot regulate its own trade, cannot have a judiciary that is not overseen by a higher court, cannot do anything a sovereign country can do then isn't the proper term for that a "colony"? Is that what you are saying the states are? Colonies?
Back to cherry picking again?
His argument is one of might makes right - not government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed.
The main difference between 1776 and 1861 is that in 1861 there wasn’t a rival superpower willing to shovel money and supplies and guns at the secessionists and lend them troops and lend them their navy. The other main difference is that the states were sovereign and had the right to secede while the colonies were not and did not have a legal right to secede.
What does that have to do with anything?
Read his letter to Alexander Hamilton on New York's conditional ratification. "My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification."
There is no "legal right" to secede. Never has been one.
A treaty between sovereign powers, a compact, a contract....it’s been called all of the former. They did form an alliance of sorts. It’s also been called a confederacy (especially early on). The states agreed to be bound only int those areas they had specifically delegated and no more.
They are evidence of the original intent of the parties to the compact.
Nowhere in the constitution is the power granted to the federal government to prevent secession. Nobody claimed the federal government had that power before or even immediately after ratification.
No they very specifically DID NOT. Read the constitution. Read the federalist papers. Your statement runs directly contrary to what the constitution’s supporters were saying.
In Madison’s own words in the federalist papers the powers delegated to the federal govt are specific and limited. The powers retained by the states are numerous and unlimited.
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.