Pros and Cons to California seceding from the USA?

www.forbes.com... 56acc5a9c

"Calexit Means American Taxpayers Won't Have To Bailout California's Ticking Pension Time Bomb"

More and more, I keep thinking Calexit would be a good idea. Liberals are not happy with America. They want a place where all their agendas are made into reality.

The rest of the USA (well, most of it) wants stricter immigration and we're tired of California's influence on our nation. We're tired of the liberals fleeing their sinking ship but still bringing their failing politics with them.

California is a ticking time bomb. Time to let it go and sort itself out.

Heck, Hillary Clinton is apparently so loved she could be their first President!

Nothing says California couldn't attempt to rejoin the USA later.

Thoughts?

Goodbye and Good Riddance to em .

It will also keep all the hollywierd types from becoming stateless as no civilized country would accept them .

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Couldn't happen soon enough for me. It would be a serious eye opener for the residents that stuck around in CA to see just how fast that ship would sink and how suddenly impoverished they would become.

They would probably go and join the EU

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Frankly, it would likely be a tax nightmare for me. If we can build a wall between Oregon and California I'm all for it, though.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Agreed, there are many positives and very few negatives.

Most importantly, it sets the precedent for peaceful secession, something that (to date) has been dismissed as absurd by the iron-fistocrats.

California was almost bankrupt a few years back. Also California is at a high chance of seizmic activity, and if something major happens, the rest of the USA is there to help them. If they want to go out on their own, then let them go, we do not need so many idiotic people in this country. They should be looking at risk, what good are all their ports if the USA puts tarriffs on the stuff they ship to the US. Their taxes will be so high, most businesses will move to the rest of the USA, even hollywood will relocate. Silicone valley will be moving to the east coast.

only legal path to secession is by amending the constitution.
Amending the Constitution requires approval of the amendment by either 1) two-thirds of each branch of Congress or 2) two-thirds of states at a specially-formed constitutional convention, with the amendment then being ratified by three-quarters of the states. This is difficult enough that it has been done only 17 times in 227 years, excluding the passage of the Bill of Rights shortly after the Constitution itself was ratified.

There's no legal precedence for secession provided by the Constitution. The Civil war answered the question as to whether or not a state can, however, those states lost and were brought back into the fold.

California could not exist on its own and an idea of secession is just a "shock" statement with no real merit behind it. It is nothing more than a shabby statement made by politicians that don't like that Trump won and that the government is swinging to the Republican side.

My personal opinion: have at it but don't come crying for handouts when you are bankrupt and fenced off from the rest of the union. You will need a Visa, passport and permission to travel the rest of the United States. Hollywood can die for all I care. Self absorbed, self important, jump on the band wagon, it takes a village morons.

originally posted by: CaDreamer
only legal path to secession is by amending the constitution.
Amending the Constitution requires approval of the amendment by either 1) two-thirds of each branch of Congress or 2) two-thirds of states at a specially-formed constitutional convention, with the amendment then being ratified by three-quarters of the states. This is difficult enough that it has been done only 17 times in 227 years, excluding the passage of the Bill of Rights shortly after the Constitution itself was ratified.

The most cogent argument against voluntary disassociation can be made by imagining that a group of people who agree to do a thing together are forever bound, as are their progeny, infinitely and inescapably into the future.

I would argue that this is not a reasonable position to hold. If a party does wish to exit the agreement, it would make zero sense for that desire to be validated only by the approval of the other signatories. Further, in contract law, there is no precedent for mandatory generational adherence. You do not automatically inherit the debts of your parents and ancestors.

Too bad we can't actually break them off from the mainland and set them adrift.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Can't think of any cons. I do like their state flag tho, biggest loss imo

I say don't let the door hit you in the a$$ on the way out. Not to mention, if CA votes itself out, that northern CA will probably split from southern CA and either stay a state, or become one of its own (northern CA is pretty conservative from my experience). It will be less than 1 year until they totally run out of money and will be begging to be a state again, and at that time we can give them the big middle finger

a reply to: Teikiatsu

It would be bad for CA, and it would change a long stretch of coast into more land border to defend. China could sail right in and take over (theoretically, though I suspect we would defend CA as an ally.)

The US would also lose a huge portion of tax revenue. CA receives a lot less federal money than it puts in.

I don't know what So Cal is going to do, but I love the concept of Cascadia.

Regional ties are much stronger than national ties, honestly. The people of Vancouver, Seattle, Olympia, Portland have far more in common with one another than they do with the people of Mississippi. I'm not sure it is even possible to govern both without short-sticking one.

And what about states like Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, Georgia and Texas? While Obama was in office, they wanted to leave the union. Texas was the loudest, and keeps threatening it every time something goes wrong in DC.

Think very carefully on this, if California were to leave, then any other state that wanted to, they would have a legal basis to do such and then could, even the one you live in.

While as appealing as it is to do such, the real fight is to stay and make it work, to work towards and with others.

80% of our food comes from California.

They can leave, but we would have to invade and wipe them out to take their resources.

Win, win.

We'd be buying our produce from a foreign country... but then, all my mangoes come from Peru and often my oranges come from South Africa. Weird.

But, let's talk hydro. From where would this new country get its water and electric? The Hoover Damn is capable of providing irrigation for 2,000,000 acres, and electricity to power 1.3 million homes. (Source) so L.A. better get busy with desalination plants, and solar panels on every rooftop.

The new country would have the sixth largest (nominal) GDP in the world.
Snipped



Our elections would change dramatically. Plenty of room for third-party candidates if the electoral college goes from 538 to 483 after the loss of California's 55 electoral college votes. Losing two U.S. Senators would ramp up the DC Statehood movement which is gaining traction. (I personally think this movement is where Obama plans to hoist his flag after January 20.)

Calexit is a big idea, but so was the moon landing.

The problem with any talk of succession is that it is based on an old and outdated binary: you're either with us or against us.

A far more productive way to look at Calexit, or Cascadia or a regional movement to disentangle Texas is to think of them as semi-autonomous regions within a greater whole, like the Scottland within the UK.

Those who desire the all or nothing approach are trucking with the weight of history behind them, which is not insignificant. We can reduce the factionalism by simply moving towards a more semi-autonomous model whenever we like, but we have to change the binary we currently operate under.

All or nothing is an incredibly short-sighted approach. There is simply no way that a Federation of Texas states will ever agree on local issues with Cascadia, for example. That doesn't mean that both don't share a united responsibility to promote the general health and well-being of the overall union. On the contrary: a united front is often useful when dealing with other "world regions."

I do believe that ultimately, we will transition to a model which incorporates some elements of semi-autonomy within the United States. I also happen to believe that such a thing, done well, will make us all stronger in the long run.

originally posted by: CaDreamer

only legal path to secession is by amending the constitution.
Amending the Constitution requires approval of the amendment by either 1) two-thirds of each branch of Congress or 2) two-thirds of states at a specially-formed constitutional convention, with the amendment then being ratified by three-quarters of the states. This is difficult enough that it has been done only 17 times in 227 years, excluding the passage of the Bill of Rights shortly after the Constitution itself was ratified.

You need 3/4s of the States to approve an amendment to the Constitution which is why this will never happen.