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.
Oh please. Chase was one of the parties involved. His is hardly a dispassionate objective reading of the constitution we are bound to respect.
Your second statement is nothing more than a might makes right argument. The Founding Fathers were only able to gain their independence because the rival superpower of the day backed them heavily.
I do not agree with the false distinction you are trying to draw between rebellion and secession. Furthermore nowhere did the states surrender their sovereignty rather than delegate certainn powers. Allowing themselves to require the permission of others instead of their right to unilaterally secede would have been surrendering their sovereignty. They were no more going to agree to that than Maryland would agree it needed the permission of Kent or Connecticut agree it needed the permission of Sussex to secede from the British Empire.
You don’t have to project anything if your adversary is giving it away.
China is all over Africa right and I don’t recall any Chinese navy that intervened and made it possible.
Forget China then, the US giving up California would be a strategic retreat from the Pacific - period! To claim it would have no repercussions on the Pacific rim nations is naïve.
There were some who described it as a treaty. There were many different descriptions of this newly created experimental entity.
Well they were wrong then, weren't they? The New England states would not have threatened to secede at the Hartford Convention in 1814.
The overwhelming majority of the delegates to the Hartford Convention did not advocate secession. The declaration that they issued did not threaten or propose it. So since we do not know what form their secession might have taken then it's impossible to say whether it would have been illegal or not.
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.
Or afterwards either. But what does that have to do with unilateral secession?
Article I lays out the structure of the US Congress.
Article I lays restrictions on the states, too, in Section 10. Clause 3 says that the states cannot enter into any agreement or compact with another state, specifically states could not join together to change their borders without Congressional approval. So in addition to discounting your claims of sovereignty, Article 10 shows just how much control Congress has over a state's status once it has been allowed to join.
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.
In showing all the other ways that Congressional approval is needed for a state to alter its condition in any way it also implies that Congressional approval should be needed for any changes not elsewhere noted.
Nowhere in the constitution does it say a state requires permission from the other states to secede.
Implied, like I said. You do understand what "implied" means right?
Through what act do you believe a majority of persons in California (which inevitably includes millions of enemy aliens) have a right to alienate the citizenship of the millions who wish to remain and to take control of property over which the People of the United States through Congress properly exercise sovereignty?
By implication perhaps.
Rebellion is renouncing the authority of a government to which he previously belonged. Secession/and declaring independence are forms of that.
Except that secession, when done lawfully, is legal while rebellion never is.
No I don’t. Nobody at the time argued that a state may not secede. Madison and Hamilton never said this in the federalist papers. No other states said they could not accept the ratifications of the 3 states that made those express reservations. Under the principle of Comity, every state understood itself to have that right. Again it was only 8 years after each state’s independence had been recognized after an expensive bloody eight year long war. They were not about to agree to bind themselves forever to a new entity they could not be sure wouldn’t one day grow to become as oppressive as the one they had just left.
The New England states certainly thought states had the right to secede since they themselves threatened to do so.
All you've got is claims of bias? Why am I not surprised?
Your second statement is nothing more than a might makes right argument. The Founding Fathers were only able to gain their independence because the rival superpower of the day backed them heavily.
Which means that the Confederates were not successful because none of the other superpowers of the day agreed that their acts of secession were legal?
I do not agree with the false distinction you are trying to draw between rebellion and secession
I think any false distinctions are on your side.
Furthermore nowhere did the states surrender their sovereignty rather than delegate certainn powers.
They surrendered every power that makes a sovereign state a sovereign state.
Allowing themselves to require the permission of others instead of their right to unilaterally secede would have been surrendering their sovereignty.
What on earth are you talking about????? The Constitution is filled with examples where states are either forbidden to do something entirely or can only do it with the permission of Congress. What sovereign power operates under restrictions like that?
Making up your own definitions now?
For example?
No they weren’t wrong. They were the parties making the agreement.
There were numerous proposals to secede put forth at the Hartford Convention. Some wanted to. Some did not. Some doubtless wanted to use the threat if doing so as leverage in negotiating with the others. There were hardly any however who claimed they did not have the right to do so.
The importance of neither Madison nor anybody else even claiming before or at the time that a state could not secede is it shows the original intent of the parties. Agreements/contracts cannot be unilaterally altered by one or some of the parties after the fact.
States delegated their right to make separate treaties. So what? That is not a grant of irrevocable total power to the federal government. Parties to a trade union cannot make separate trade deals on their own either. They are still sovereign countries and may leave.
Article IV nowhere implies a state may not unilaterally secede.
You do understand any implication of ever more power for the federal government is exactly why a 10th amendment was added right? It was to deny any such implication.
Yeah, you do. Nobody has to ratify a ratification. Or would you have us believe that having ratified New York's ratification then New York needed to ratify the fact that Congress had ratified it? Which would require Congress to ratify New York's ratification of Congress' ratification of New York's ratification of the Constitution. And so on and so on and so on.
The New England states certainly thought states had the right to secede since they themselves threatened to do so.
And when did they actually try and secede? And how were they planning on going about it?
Any state that seceded would obviously need to settle accounts on a good faith basis eg gaining infrastructure on their territory but taking a portion of the national debt. By what power could a state leave if some people wanted to remain? Vote!
Divorce is not easy but forcing one of the partners to remain in by violent means converts the relationship from one based on consent to one based on violence.
This argument between rebellion, secession, declaring independence is a semantic one. Secession and declaring independence are the same thing. The only difference with rebellion is that the rebels may be seeking to overthrow the government rather than to leave.
No it is a legal one. As in what is legal and what is illegal.
IF a reservation of the right to secede were a violation of or inconsistent with the constitution, others would have said something. If you are making a deal with someone and he makes claim to a condition you don’t agree with, and you then accept that agreement, you have accepted that term or condition. If you cannot accept that term or condition then you must not accept. In contract law, adding a term would be considered a counter offer.....one the offeree will be bound by if he accepts the agreement.
I did not say the New England states “tried” to secede. Their representatives were literally on the way to Washington DC when the war of 1812 ended.
“For example?”
You think nobody in the whole country described it thusly? This was a new animal. It took a while before the terminology became settled Convention with everybody.
And besides, everyone knows that when they signed their ratifications they secretly had their fingers crossed.
*SMH*
I’m not making up definitions. That’s what you’ve been trying to do claiming secession and declaring independence were somehow different.
Using divorce as an analogy to rebellion is stupid.
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.