On January 26, the California Secretary of State said the proponents of an initiative for California independence may begin to collect signatures. They need 585,407 valid signatures by July 25, 2017. Here is the organization’s web page. The initiative, which hopes to be on the ballot in November 2018, would ask voters if they want to authorize a special election in 2019 for independence. At that 2019 vote, the measure would not take effect unless it got 55% “yes” and unless at least 50% of the registered voters participated.
Should be a fascinating debate.
— of voter fraud?? Sworn petition signers. USDC nynd 16cv1496 strunk v State of California
Usca dcc 16-5375op
They suggest that persons would be permitted to hold dual US and California citizenship, but that need not be the case, and would be undesirable. It would not be healthy for California if most residents were aliens, and over time there would be two classes of California citizens, those who were dual citizens and could freely move to the US, and those who were California citizens only and would be subject to visa controls.
It would be better to require persons who acquire California citizenship to renounce their US citizenship. Treaties could be negotiated that permitted US citizens who had a demonstrated an affinity with California a permanent right of domicile.
The war of the NBCs
Natural born US citizens v natural born California citizens
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article129047749.html
Based on Mark Dice’s videos, I think this will happen.
Wouldn’t Congress have to agree to this as well, or would the California vote be the final step in the process?
Why on earth would California want to cut itself off from US government money? They are in debt up to their eyeballs and I should think they would want the assurance of unlimited fiat financing. Am I missing something?
I hope other parts of the United States follow California’s lead. I think that the U.S. should be broken up into several independent countries like the old Soviet Union. New England with the MidWest, The South, Texas, the Mountain West, the Pacific Coast, Alaska, and Hawaii should all be independent. They all have unique identities and their own separate cultures.
Nick, there is no established method of secession. Rather, the question was suppressed by Lincoln’s military imposition of a presumption against secession.
Maine already has one foot out of the door anyway.
@ Nick:
Besides the Civil War, the only definitive case in which the legality of secession was discussed was a case called Texas v White. It said, in part:
“The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States”
While the language seems categorical, it does provide for one peaceful method of secession: “through consent of the states.” What this means in practice is not spelled out, but I interpret to mean that a state desiring to secede can negotiate its secession with the US Senate, which is the only permanent body under the Constitution to represent the states. The only other body that could do so would be a properly convened national constitutional convention, which hasn’t happened since 1787.
I would submit that the Civil War meant nothing as a precedent since Lincoln didn’t have the authority to stop a State from seceding. He certainly had the authority to protect Federal property but as to whether or not a State could succeed was a Constitutional question and therefore one the Supreme Court needed to decide.
Having said that though, there are certain questions about the different levels of States. For instance, the thirteen colonies that originally joined the Union have a right to secede (in my opinion) since there is nothing in the Constitution that says they can’t. And possibly even Texas as they came into the Union on their own. (At least I believe that was the case.) But the States that formed from land purchased by the Federal government are another matter, such as those formed from the Louisiana Purchase and Alaska. Also, States formed from land won in wars fought by the Federal government, such as California. Since it was Federal money that allowed them to come into the Union, they may have second class stateship, so to speak.
One last question though. Why is it that when people in Texas proposed this everyone laughed at them as being a bunch of hicks for not knowing that the Civil War settled the question, but when California does it, it’s taken seriously?
smz, Texas does not have an initiative process. Because California does, citizens are using the process to put a question on the ballot. If Texas did have an initiative process it’s very likely they would have tried it there.
Goodbye, California. Hello, tax savings for the other 49 states.
@ smz
Hawaii was neither purchased nor captured in war, but was admitted on the basis of a request for admission. (Some may argue that the US interfered in the overthrow of the royal Hawaiian government) So, given your principle, is Hawaii eligible for secession?
http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/316461-supporters-of-calexit-movement-can-begin-collecting-signatures-to
@Walt – Yes. Even though the US did interfere in the overthrow.
@Chris – I know Texas doesn’t have the initiative but a group down there is trying to get the momemtum to spkit from the US.
@Walt,
The reasoning of ‘Texas v White’ is specious. The Articles of Confederation called for a perpetual Union. The preamble of the US Constitution provides for a “more perfect Union”. The SCOTUS concluded that the under the Constitution the Union of the United States were even more perfect than perpetual. This despite the fact that the Articles of Confederation wasn’t working, and in theory States could choose not to join the Union under the Constitution, and two, North Carolina and Rhode Island, did not until after the government was already in operation.
Michael –
Do your homework before you embarrass yourself further.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/