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 clearly are
To which post are you responding?
Yet New York’s ratification was accepted despite it making an express reservation at the time of ratification stating that it retained its ultimate sovereignty and could resume the powers it delegated to the new federal government. If states could not do so, if they were agreeing to bind themselves forever, why did nobody say the ratifications of New York and Virginia and Rhode Island were defective and could not be accepted?
There is a legal right to secede and has always been one.
More than any other single man, Madison is responsible for the content of the Constitution and it's subsequent ratification.
...he never claimed the ratifications were defective because states reserved the right to secede at the time.
Did you not read the letter he wrote to Hamilton? I provided a link.
I disagree - (playing your game) show me where it is enumerated.
Sure it is.
Nowhere in the constitution is it written that the federal government was given the power by the states to prevent states from seceding.
That's why I said it was implied. If the approval of the federal government is required to join the union and for any change in status or border once allowed in then it's no great leap to conclude that federal approval was needed to leave as well. Madison certainly thought so.
The federal govt also does not have the power to make a state from the land of an existing state.
Not alone. But federal approval is needed for it to happen.
The power to prevent secession is nowhere implied in the constitution.
It is implied by the powers granted Congress in Article I and Article IV.
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.
Probably. But as I pointed out earlier the only thing that prevents a state from leaving is the approval of the other states as expressed through a majority vote in Congress.
Their actions were illegal under British law. That's rebellion.
But, as my learned friend rockrr has pointed out, Lincoln was talking about rebellion and not secession. The two are not synonymous.
That wouldn’t stop the lefties from moving eastward in order to get their freebies, though. But at least the country would be much more conservative.
Oh please, Chief Justice Chase dealt with what was permissible under the Constitution.
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 main difference is that in 1776 the Founding Fathers wanted their independence enough to win their rebellion while in 1861 the Confederates did not.
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.
Please do not confuse a right to secede with rebellion. States in the U.S. do have a right to secede, we just disagree on the method. You would have us believe that the Constitution only provides protections for those states leaving while I believe the Constitution protects both those wishing to leave and those wanting to stay.
I'm not aware of anyone from the period who described the Constitution as "a treaty between sovereign powers".
You have that backwards. Nobody "accepted" New York's ratification or any other state's ratification. On they contrary, they were the ones doing the accepting. By ratifying the Constitution they were accepting its supremacy and agreeing to abide by it's constraints.
He was not a state. He was not one of the parties to the compact.
I read the letter. How come he did not publicly declare at the time that no state may make such a reservation? Why did he not ever say that in the federalist papers? Over and above that, why did nobody tell NY and RI and VA that they were not in the union since they made these express reservations?....that their ratification could not be accepted?
Plainly, states do have that right.
It would have to be enumerated for the federal government to have that power, not the other way around. The states preceded the federal government and created it.
Nope.
Implied? The states obviously didn’t think so or several of them would not have made these express reservations. The New England states would not have threatened to secede at the Hartford Convention in 1814.
Madison never argued either beforehand that a state would be bound forever and surrender its sovereignty by ratifying the constitution or that a state’s ratification was rendered defective by making these express reservations.
Article I lays out the structure of the US Congress. Article IV deals with the states and makes clear boundaries may not be altered nor new states created within e isting states without the consent of the state legislatures. Nowhere does it imply any power to prevent secession.
Nowhere in the constitution does it say a state requires permission from the other states to secede.
Same thing.
Most of the leaders in the states were not one of the parties who drew up and approved the Constitution. So who would know better what the meaning was?
How come he did not publicly declare at the time that no state may make such a reservation?
Because he was addressing New York. Are you suggesting that Madison might have felt that New York's conditional ratification wasn't valid but some other state's conditional ratification was? Really?
Over and above that, why did nobody tell NY and RI and VA that they were not in the union since they made these express reservations?....that their ratification could not be accepted?
Again you have it backwards. States were doing the accepting and not Congress or anyone else.
Plainly, states do have that right.
Not unilaterally, no.
I have never seen any dictionary or any source whatsoever that lists "secession" as a synonym for "rebellion" or vice versa.
Secession and declaring independence are indeed the same thing. Rebellion is renouncing the authority of a government to which he previously belonged. Secession/and declaring independence are forms of that. One cannot leave without renouncing the former government’s authority.
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.