Is there a reasonable consequence to be imposed if a law maker sponsors or votes ...

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Metal god

What the heck are you talking about Frank . What do you mean work it all out and see if it could work ? Let me ask you this , do you beleave a geographical area with the fifth largest economy in the world could not stand on its own . Are you forgetting they would be starting there own country and establishing there own laws to follow .....

My point is that you really don't understand this stuff. There are so many details, so many interrelationships, that disconnecting everything would be a monumental task.

What about currency? What would California's money be and how would it be valued on the world market?

What about banking? Deposits in banks in California, like the rest of the country, are insured by the federal government. What happens if California were to secede?

And yes, New California would need to establish laws as an independent country. But it also has laws now and a Constitution.

Originally Posted by Metal god

...To answer your question specifically no I cannot work that out for you right here real quick...

You couldn't do it no matter how much time you had. Modeling a change like this would be a huge task. Let's watch how Great Britain extricates itself from the EU, and that's small potatoes compared to a State, with all the interrelationships and interdependencies, leaving the U. S.

But it's moot anyway. It's not going to happen. If nothing else, the Supreme Court has ruled that a State may not unilaterally secede from the Union (Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869)).

[zincwarrior]

Everyone might want to ease back on the angry word meter. Its getting a bit hostile...

OT but California has a massive problem if it wanted to secede. It gets its water from other states. Shut that off and Southern California would be out of water in 30 days.

But it's moot anyway. It's not going to happen. If nothing else, the Supreme Court has ruled that a State may not unilaterally secede from the Union (Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869)).

Actually there's earlier and far more persuasive case law: Lee vs. Grant (1865, appeal denied)

[carguychris]

At the risk of prolonging what's arguably a thread hijack, there IS recent precedent for a major country suddenly splitting apart, without really working out all of the details beforehand.

The collapse of the Soviet Union.

However, perhaps this proves Frank's point: this process did NOT go well for the new component parts.

Although, to me, it brings up another interesting question: what to do about the military, particularly the huge and vital Naval Base Coronado complex in San Diego. Would this be handled like Guantanamo Bay, or (dare I say it) Sevastopol?

[44 AMP]

Playing the what if game a little bit, as Frank touched on, there's the money to consider...

do you beleave a geographical area with the fifth largest economy in the world could not stand on its own

What happens to that "world's 5th largest economy" if the Fed govt, freezes or seizes all assets not physically in California? If the rest of the US is ordered to boycott them in all regards??

Its more than just a minor stumbling block. Any assumptions we could make are just guesses. IF the people of CA stopped paying the Fed govt and used that money for themselves, would it be enough to provide the citizens with those benefits and services to which they have become accustomed, and WILL demand???

Throw in another factor, the segment of the population that would rather see California as part of Mexico than as an independent nation...

I can't even begin to count the worms in just the top layer of the can when you open up California seceding from the Union.

And, as Frank pointed out, its apparently illegal as well...

here's another worm, there are major Federal military bases in CA, and they have guns and will do their best to follow what they believe to be legal orders.

I don't see how CA, or any state could secede and enforce that, unless the Federal Government agrees and allows it.

And that, I just don't see happening as long as there IS a Federal Government...

[Metal god]

I'm really getting tiered of you calling stupid in your talk down to me from your high horse Frank . I understand just fine , I may not be able to explain everything you want in a way you are willing to except but that does not mean I don't understand what's being said here . I'd like you to leave this thread and please don't return .

If Feds seize assets , CA seizes Federal assets inside the state . That would assume this was a hostile transition . I'm not trying to argue what's right or wrong just if it's possible . I say yes it is and nobody has said otherwise . Only that it would be a monumental task . I don't disagree with that at all .

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Metal god

I'm really getting tiered of you calling stupid in your talk down to me from your high horse Frank . I understand just fine , I may not be able to explain everything you want in a way you are willing to except but that does not mean I don't understand what's being said here . I'd like you to leave this thread and please don't return ....

First, I will not be told by you what threads to participate in.

Second, the point you're missing is that while you are promoting an idea, no one seems to be buying into it. And yet you keep pushing without coming up with any good reasons as to why we should buy into it.

You and ATN082268 seem to think it would be a fine idea for us to pillory (beyond simply not voting for them) legislators who voted for a law later found to be unconstitutional. And notwithstanding me, and others, pointing out what a lousy idea that is and why legal principles were adopted hundreds years ago, and are still accepted, to prevent that, you continue to promote that vision. And you do so without addressing the fundamental policy considerations that supported the original adoption of those legal principles. But if you can't address the core reasons for legislative immunity and explain why we should discard those reasons, why would you expect different responses from us.

Now you want to promote the secession of California from the Union, but you really can't begin to address all the practical and legal reasons why the can't/shouldn't happen and why it would be a bad idea. Indeed looking at th Yes California website I see no indication those reasons have been rigorously addressed. And this article from New York Magazine outlines why the administrative hurdles look insurmountable:

....Having said all that, the process required to make Calexit a reality is not just daunting: It’s basically impossible. The first part is the easiest: If Yes California can get its initiative onto the 2018 ballot, it needs only 50-percent-plus-one approval to amend the state constitution. But then the 2019 referendum it authorizes is on shaky legal ground, and according to Yes California’s own ground rules, it would only “pass” if 50 percent of registered voters participated and 55 percent voted for independence. The participation standard alone sets a pretty high bar for success in an off-year election; turnout in the last regular midterm election was only 42 percent.

If a Calexit referendum in California succeeded, of course, it would only take effect if the rest of the country went along with it. That would mean a constitutional amendment requiring two-thirds votes in Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states, or the first constitutional convention since 1787. The only alternative, unilateral secession, was tried in 1861, as close scholars of history could tell you, and it did not work out well....

[HiBC]

I'd vote for letting them go.

That way when it falls off and sinks in the ocean we won't have to pay for it.
I'm sure the U.N. will take care of them.

And we probably ought to start building the fence now

[JimPage]

This thread should be titled, "What Whacky Ideas do you have?"

[2ndsojourn]

"I'd vote for letting them go"
But then we'd have to build a longer wall along CA's eastern border to keep out the gunrunners.

[Al Norris]

Enough.