3 California Secession Theory better than Other secession theories (sale, real estate)

[joosoon]

It's not a physical constant, no. But contrary to what you're saying, I didn't miss that author's point. I just said it was a bad one, because it's based entirely on semantics. And for the record, "unilaterally" isn't mentioned in Texas v. White anyway. So he's just wrong altogether in his reasoning. But setting that aside, just because something isn't 110% beyond all possibility, doesn't mean it's within the realm of likely probability.



What's MOST important in all these silly secession schemes is how the supreme court and federal government views the very concept of statehood. For one, without going into every detail of T v. W, the very declaration that a state is no longer a state is "{a} position {which} could only be maintained by arms". But even so the court explicitly rejects that during the course of Texas's term in the confederacy, it remained a state. Here's what they said:


Did Texas, in consequence of these acts, cease to be a State? Or, if not, did the State cease to be a member of the Union? It is needless to discuss at length the question whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause regarded by herself as sufficient is consistent with the Constitution of the United States. The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. In other words, the first step to secession would have to be the dissolution of the U.S. constitution altogether. So is that probable from the federal government's point of view?



So just like I've said a billion times, there's no LEGAL MECHANISM "consistent with the U.S. Constitution" which allows for secession. Period. That's established by 150 year old case law. The courts/feds view statehood as "indissoluble" and for all "perpetuity". Even more pointedly, they suggest that the absence of states by definition would mean the United States could not exist. That may sound like stating the obvious, but their point is "{t}he Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States."


There's much more, but hopefully you get the point here. So is possibility a good argument for probability with respect to secession? Errr, no. It's possible the earth will be crushed into a single atom in a black hole as we discuss this. But it's really not probable, is it? Therefore, the argument that secession by some astronomically large alignment of treaties and handshakes is absurd. That's especially true given the the federal government's perspective of its duties to maintain the status quo (i.e. being the USA). Further to that, if California ever did attempt to allow the secession wackos room to move on their ideas, I would feel duty-bound as a US citizen to protect the union at all costs. So how much ammo do these nutballs have?



So can we pretty please with sugar on top put these asinine secession threads to bed once and for all?

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by joosoon

You're replying to a seven year old post. Did someone else bump this zombie thread and delete, or was there a reason to reignite this ridiculous secession debate?
There are NO secession theories that are better than others because ALL secession theories have no legal legitimacy. There isn't a legal mechanism for a state to secede the union. Period.

Actually there was a new post before I posted apparently it was removed by the OP, that's why the thread showed up under 'new posts'. But if my post kept you from kicking the dog then it was worth it.

[joosoon]

I don't own a dog.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by joosoon

So can we pretty please with sugar on top put these asinine secession threads to bed once and for all?

No. I like the topic. Actually, I love the topic … very entertaining every time it pops up. You can just not read or respond? It’s not a law of physics that you have to participate, right?

Originally Posted by joosoon

It's not a physical constant, no. But contrary to what you're saying, I didn't miss that author's point. I just said it was a bad one, because it's based entirely on semantics. And for the record, "unilaterally" isn't mentioned in Texas v. White anyway. So he's just wrong altogether in his reasoning. But setting that aside, just because something isn't 110% beyond all possibility, doesn't mean it's within the realm of likely probability.



What's MOST important in all these silly secession schemes is how the supreme court and federal government views the very concept of statehood. For one, without going into every detail of T v. W, the very declaration that a state is no longer a state is "{a} position {which} could only be maintained by arms". But even so the court explicitly rejects that during the course of Texas's term in the confederacy, it remained a state. Here's what they said:


Did Texas, in consequence of these acts, cease to be a State? Or, if not, did the State cease to be a member of the Union? It is needless to discuss at length the question whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause regarded by herself as sufficient is consistent with the Constitution of the United States. The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. In other words, the first step to secession would have to be the dissolution of the U.S. constitution altogether. So is that probable from the federal government's point of view?



So just like I've said a billion times, there's no LEGAL MECHANISM "consistent with the U.S. Constitution" which allows for secession. Period. That's established by 150 year old case law. The courts/feds view statehood as "indissoluble" and for all "perpetuity". Even more pointedly, they suggest that the absence of states by definition would mean the United States could not exist. That may sound like stating the obvious, but their point is "{t}he Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States."


There's much more, but hopefully you get the point here. So is possibility a good argument for probability with respect to secession? Errr, no. It's possible the earth will be crushed into a single atom in a black hole as we discuss this. But it's really not probable, is it? Therefore, the argument that secession by some astronomically large alignment of treaties and handshakes is absurd. That's especially true given the the federal government's perspective of its duties to maintain the status quo (i.e. being the USA). Further to that, if California ever did attempt to allow the secession wackos room to move on their ideas, I would feel duty-bound as a US citizen to protect the union at all costs. So how much ammo do these nutballs have?

Semantics … lol … so? This forum is rife with semantics … life is rife with semantics.

I’ve never said secession was likely, probable, etc. But discussion about it - much like discussions about earth being crushed into a black hole - IS always certainly lively … and very humorous.

I repeat: it IS perfectly legal, and possible within the laws of the universe, for the state to campaign congress to enact legislation to allow California to secede … AND, furthermore, while I entirely accept it is extraordinarily unlikely such effort would succeed, judging by the plethora of hateful support for x-ing CA from the rest of the union, as expressed by countless posters from other states when this has come up before - um, it’s not the craziest notion ever.

As for you taking up arms to defend the integrity of the Union? Go for it bro … there are arms all around, both sides. Worst can happen is a population reduction … which … can’t hurt, eh?

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by joosoon

I don't own a dog.

Sorry to hear

[Tulemutt]

Furthermore … remember: every precedent, in life and laws, was once *without precedent*.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

I repeat: it IS perfectly legal, and possible within the laws of the universe, for the state to campaign congress to enact legislation to allow California to secede …

"Laws of the universe"...


Since we're in a mood to reiterate things, I'll go ahead and repeat something too: Secession ISN'T perfectly legal under the current, actual constitution and laws of the nation which we are all bound by to obey. Once again, here's the reason why. I'll go ahead and just let reality speak for itself. That, and indisputable 150 year old case law. All this theoretical musing along the lines of "well, if we did this and that and all the planets aligned, we could secede" is silly.



If tigers had gills and flippers, they would be excellent swimmers.... but they don't.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

As for you taking up arms to defend the integrity of the Union? Go for it bro … there are arms all around, both sides. Worst can happen is a population reduction … which … can’t hurt, eh?

Since we're entertaining "theories" for things, I think it was perfectly fitting to point out the most likely results of an attempt by a state to secede the nation (again). Once more, I'll just let history speak for itself. We kinda know the outcome when state(s) say, "we're outta here, guys". It involves lot's of bloodshed.


Oh, and you're right about those arms being pervasive. The thing is, I'd have the backing of the U.S. military too so I'm good with that. It's not like there's a shortage of that here in San Diego.

[tikkasf]

This quote is my understanding of the issue:


"
Do States Have the Right to Secede?

But what if we really do want to divide ourselves into actual separate nations? Could we do it?
The late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia once wrote, “If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede."
Actually, there is.
What Scalia probably meant to say was that there is no unilateral right to secede. One state can't just say, “The heck with you, U.S.A. We're out of here."
What a state (or states) can do, however, is begin the process of seeking a mutually agreed upon parting of the ways, and that process clearly exists, set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1868 ruling in Texas v. White. That ruling concluded that a state (or states) could secede by gaining approval of both houses of Congress and then obtaining ratification by three fourths of the nation's legislatures. In other words, it's a tough task."


https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/l...rom-the-union/

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by tikkasf

This quote is my understanding of the issue:

That's what Mutt and I were talking about. He posted the same thing on another thread. It's terrible information. The author completely ignores the very case he cites as his "proof".



If you read Texas v. White, the language of the decision is totally unambiguous. That fact is particularly evident when the justices said this:

"It is needless to discuss at length the question whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause regarded by herself as sufficient is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"


Read Texas v. White instead some journalist's spin on what he *thinks* it should say.