#Calexit: A #Brexit Inspired movement America loves!
Preparing for life as a Legal Insurrection foreign correspondent
Legal Insurrection readers and authors were recently having a robust discussion on the the British exit from the European Union and its potential impact on the U.S.
Perhaps the biggest #Brexit effect with be on state independence movements. For example, Louis J. Marinelli, a Californian political activist and leader of the California independence movement, is using the European developments to drive a harder push to have California split from the United States.
His dream of seeing a free, independent California Republic was buoyed by Thursday’s shock result of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union—known as Brexit. Marinelli, president of the “Yes California” movement, was inspired by the Brexit vote, as “Leave” supporters in England and Wales overwhelmed “Remain” backers in Scotland and Northern Ireland—prompting discussions of whether Scotland will hold another referendum to leave the U.K behind and retain EU membership.
All Friday, Marinelli and “Yes California” were busy tweeting and interacting with people musing about a California exit—or Calexit.
The move already has quite a few proponents:
What if California had a #Calexit campaign to leave or remain in the U.S.? How would you vote?
— Steve Chiotakis (@RadioChio) June 24, 2016
Can we all vote for Cali to leave now? #Calexit https://t.co/972NUCqrz9 — LionHeart (@jmcdesq) June 24, 2016
#CalExit ~ California Overtakes France to Become Sixth-Largest Economy https://t.co/nXGy00F8qX by @alisonvekshin via @bpolitics
— jacqui (@heyjdey) June 25, 2016
I am shocked, shocked….that so many of my fellow Americans are chomping at the bit to jettison the Golden State!
However, before anyone gets too excited about the prospect, the date set for a potential vote is far into the future. The initiative is aimed for November 2020, and would begin the process of severing California from the union.
Marinelli explains that the importance of the Brexit vote is that it shows secession isn’t just a relic of the 19th century.
“This is an example of an independence movement occurring in the Western world, a modern-day, 21st century [case] of a political entity seceding from a political union,” he said. “And so now Californians who hear the word ‘secession,’ they don’t have to think of the Civil War any more. Now they have a modern day example of how it can happen peacefully and legally and constitutionally, and that’s the path and process we intend to mimic here in California.”
He disputes the contention that secession is illegal under the U.S. Constitution, citing the 1869 Supreme Court case Texas v. White, which held that states cannot break away from the union unilaterally.
“The story out there is that states can’t secede, but they can. The problem is they can’t secede unilaterally,” said Mr. Marinelli. “You can’t just declare yourself independent. But if you get the consent of the other states, and there’s a way to do that through the amendment process, then you can do that legally and peacefully.”
I don’t recall such a passion for state secession expressed ever before in my memory, and I wonder if this is what it was like in 1860. That there is such excitement over the possibility of cutting ties with the rest of the nation demonstrates how little the average Americans trusts Washington D.C. politicos and bureaucrats, especially after 8 years of Obama’s domination over a a weak Congress.
There is one big difference between Brexit and Calexit. Britain is leaving a group that is comprised of different cultures, languages, and history. For example, most E.U. members don’t get the importance of a high quality tea kettle.
California’s culture and experiences are very closely tied to the rest America’s. (Well, mostly.)
However, it might be wise to prepare myself for life as a Legal Insurrection foreign correspondent.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
What ever happened to “Cal 6”
How about the rest of us vote to kick CA out?
This liberal State would fall on it’s ass if it were on it’s own. The smart people have fled to neighboring States and many businesses have followed. The State is horribly in debt due to pensions and unfunded Initiative bond issues that the sheeple just keep voting “yes” for. It has the highest percentage of “illegals” in the USA. OK, you say but unfortunately their income is also the lowest. Jerry the Stupid and his merry band of liberals keep on giving illegals more benefits to insure their future vote. Jerry and his lapdog Mary Nichols of CARB have saddled us with a “cap and trade” boondoggle to raise gas prices to the second highest level in the Country. And of course, the “choo-choo” to nowhere is another big fiasco. Never mind that we need new damns because of the shortage of rain but that will never happen because Jerry is in bed with the environmentalists busy saving a “bait fish” in the Delta. Kalifornia used to have an enormous agricultural industry. Thanks to the “bait fish” and the miserable water policy in the State, farms are shutting down at record rates. That doesn’t bother the liberals at all.
There has been talk here about splitting the Coast off from the rest of the State. The Coast houses the elite liberals and the Hollywood fakes. THAT split I would go for.
Pols and pundits in Cali have been jaw flapping about California independence for the 35 plus years that I lived there. And guess what? It’s still part of the union.
For practical purposes, it already IS its own nation. Full Faith and Credit means nothing in many cases. Example: trucking outfits now have to have a fleet of trucks that meet specific California pollution standards even in interstate commerce. There are other such regs as well.
I am a native Californian old enough to remember a place that had a can-do, press-on-regardless way. We smelted metals, manufactured automobiles (not just Tesla and other specialty toys), we made tires. We drilled for oil, and refined it. Our streets were filled with movie and TV crews before the local authorities shot the permit prices so high that everything is filmed in Canada or out of state.
Now, it is a place for the wealthy to play, and the peasantry to either pay the taxes to support the lazy.
Let them go, and then see how fast they wake up, if at all.
Not only do trucks have to meet the ever increasing regulations, trucks are limited to 55mph. Given the state of the interstates in that area, 55 is likely the safest speed to use.
Then again, it takes more time to get whatever is being trucked to its destination. Time is money which means we all pay more thanks to Governor Moonbat and his Commissars.
I believe such regulation also violates Congress’ exclusive legislative jurisdiction over interstate commerce. CA’s regs not only interfere with interstate commerce, they extend the State’s legislative jurisdiction beyond its borders, by forcing manufacturers (car and firearms makers come immediately to mind) and transportation providers to dance to its tune – a tune they had no voice in composing because their owners and employees have no representation in the State’s legislative assembly. The main reason the authors of the Constitution endowed Congress with exclusive legislative jurisdiction over interstate commerce was not so much for Congress to make it “regular,” but to prevent the States entirely from having any authority over the subject matter. By interfering with interstate commerce, California intrudes upon the legislative jurisdiction of Congress.
America is split in two right now. All that’s left is a way to figure out the geographic split.
… or who are the lazy themselves.
Will CA take the 9th Circuit with it? Jerry Brown could then be President!
All of this “exit” talk has really rattled the elites. That in itself tells me it is good. On the downside, however, Utopia will now be farther away than “just over the horizon” as it always is today.
While I have no doubt there are persons who, given the opportunity, would vote to exit, not just California but Texas as well. Nevertheless, I think a considerable amount of the conversation is born out of a understandable frustration with the plight of the states and the nation.
As much as the federal government is enmeshed in our live, I think it would be quite difficult to exit the republic.
Well, since they’ve pretty much seceded Southern California to Mexico…
I’d say split it North/South. The North can stay…the South…Adiós.
Then we just have to extend The Wall some. At least, until the “Big One” takes it out to or under the ocean.
The north will be saddled with the vote-heavy SF bay area, so they will be just as bad off.
Depends where you draw the line…
calexit by vote or san andreas, either one will make the rest of the country better off.
YES! Leave California, Leave! Beside the Leftist controlled and destruction, just about everything there causes cancer….
I am actually in favor of California leaving. The state is overwhelmingly ruled by a single political party (Democrat), has an abnormal influence upon morals and decency (Hollywood, San Francisco, homosexuals), a government that prefers a small bait fish to the thousands of people whose farms have dried up and is literally draining the Colorado river. Let them leave, remove all the military bases and let Arizona charge a premium for water.
Good riddance!
The concept of the Union is perhaps obsolete, or at least obsolescent. It originally was for defense. That is no longer “operative”, because America’s major enemies now are not external, they’re internal … specifically, Washington DC.
Perhaps the solution is for the Union to remain, but for Washington to be thrown out … and another capital formed, with new personnel but with the old rulebook.
Historically, the Union began as a concept—though not yet a legal reality—with the Tea Party in 1773. Lord North’s administration demanded that Boston pay for the destroyed tea, and closed the port until it did so. The other American colonies decided to support Boston rather than just keep their heads down. That crossing of a conceptual Rubicon was the beginning of the end for English rule, and the start of what was termed at the time these United States. It wasn’t until after the War of 1812 that these United States morphed into the United States in common speech—a change linguistically trivial but conceptually vital, as it’s the point at which the USA became, in the minds of its citizens, a country rather than a club.
A point not widely grasped today is that the trouble in 1860 need not have caused a war; the bombardment in Charleston Harbor was deliberately staged to cause one. That turned out to be a poor tactical decision, of course. But the overall strategy was not entirely hare-brained. And it isn’t now, either.
The seeds of destruction are planted at the very beginning. In the case of constitutional government, every Constitution has a weak point, some more glaring than others. The very carefully crafted and exquisitely balanced Weimar constitution had a fatal one. The US Constitution had—and has—some weaknesses just waiting for exploitation and perversion, perhaps the most serious being the ostensibly innocuous Commerce Clause.
I’m often impressed, tom, that someone as preachy and didactic can be so consistently illogical and historically wrong.
“A point not widely grasped today is that the trouble in 1860 need not have caused a war; the bombardment in Charleston Harbor was deliberately staged to cause one. That turned out to be a poor tactical decision, of course. But the overall strategy was not entirely hare-brained. And it isn’t now, either.”
The South refers to the Civil War as the “War of Northern Aggression,” but it was the South that sparked the war, not by seceding, but by its attack on a fort (United States property) in Charleston Harbor, as you mention. (However, it was a strategic, not a tactical, error, because it started a war the South lost – tactically it was successful, the fort surrendered.) Until that time there was no sentiment in the North to fight the South over secession or slavery. Armed aggression is what turned Northern sentiment to favor war. War is a predictable response to an act of war.
The problem was, what to do with insular possessions of the United States within the seceded States? The South attempted to negotiate over such places, but the feds refused to do so because they considered representatives of the seceded States’ governments to be illegitimate. Hopefully modern secessionist States will learn from the South’s mistakes. Even if the feds won’t negotiate over its insular possessions, just blockade them, let in only food, water, and medical supplies, but otherwise ignore them. They will eventually go away. I can’t see anyone in today’s United States getting worked up over the departure of one or more States such that they would fight to bring them back into the “Union.” In fact, if Texas secedes, many may go there (yours truly among them).
Sounds like a good idea to me. We’ll help them pack.
States might not feel like they have to leave if the federal government respected local autonomy at all. Yet California is one of the places that routines votes for or otherwise supports centralized tyranny.
Therefore, my prediction: If California secedes, it will experience civil war within 20 years. If it does not secede, it might still have that internal war. We’ll see.
Our forefathers and the drafters of the Constitution were pretty smart guys. The Constitution discusses how to bering in a new state. Article IV Section 3 is pretty clear on what is required to break one state up into smaller states, or for two states to become one.
But no where in the document is there a provision for a state to leave the union. Accident? Something they didn’t consider? Oversight? Methinks not. Looks like entry into statehood was expected to be a one way trip. Especially when that same article has this in it: “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States” So Congress can dispose of a Territory, or some other property not part of a state such as a remote island. But states? No exit mentioned.
Respectfully, that’s silly. Consider…
1. the Constitution was an ad hoc EXPERIMENT, as it says rather clearly in the preamble and as we know from history
2. as a second EXPERIMENT in forming a workable central government, NOBODY who considered their state a sovereign would DREAM of ceding their state to an irrevocable compact; these folk did not like or trust each other in many cases
3. the central government was to be the servant of the states, who delegated ONLY very carefully proscribed powers to it; the states on ratification would have briskly…individually or as a group…revolted against the new LIMITED government had it exceeded its very carefully circumscribed mandate
4. the states were, again, sovereigns; outside the VERY carefully constrained powers given the central EXPERIMENTAL government, they retained all power individually, ONLY ceding to the federal government such powers as it had under the “supremacy clause” for the sake of providing it effect
5. the correct way of looking at the relationship on formation and for decades after was that the federal government ONLY existed by delegation of the sovereigns who had given it ANY authority, and only at their continued sufferance; NOT ONE ever gave that relationship up, and the suggestion they had would have doomed ratification entirely.
So show me where in the lines written in invisible ink between the lines from which emit the emanating penumbras is the part where states can withdraw?
Experiment it may have been, but the drafters of the Constitution left out any way to withdraw from it. In fact, let’s go to Article IV Section 4: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,…” Just how exactly does the United States guarantee to every STATE in the Union a republican form of government if they have the right to secede?
If CA did secede, it would be socialist kleptocracy within 10 years.
Name one thing I have wrong.
You can’t, of course. The very idea that the Constitution NEEDED a release clause would have “made reason stare”, and made ratification impossible for the sovereign, jealous of their power, states.
One thing you have wrong? Gee, that’s hard…
Wait! I got it! The decision of the Supreme Court in Texas v White. Read the whole majority decision. Get educated. That’s the binding decision on whether states can secede, not your ramblings with no basis in written law whatsoever.
You can rant all you want. The Constitution has a way for states to get in, not a way for states to get out. The Constitution, as Salmon Chase noted, replaced the Articles of Confederation. And in the Articles appear the following phrase; “Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Perpetual, no way out in the articles. Also, a very limited way for new states to be established. One of the weaknesses. So, a new Constitution was written that strengthened the central government, and these jealous states you’re referring to ratified the new Constitution. Which had ways for new states to join. And no way for an established state to leave.
You can rant and rave and use arguments created in your own mind to say that states have the right to secede. What you can’t show is, where, in any of the founding documents, a procedure exists for a state to leave the union it entered into.
The Constitution does have a way to amend it, which appears to have been lacking in the Articles of Confederation. A reason for them to be replaced rather then amended. But, all the original states signed on to :And that the articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the states we respectively represent, and that the union shall be perpetual. The perpetual part of the agreement was neither changed nor addressed, and therefore, and therefore, is still valid. Virtually everything else in the articles was changed in some way. The fact that leaving the Union isn’t an option in the Constitution that replaced the Articles hints rather strongly towards that.
The establishment of a bicameral legislature vice a single Congress being one of the bigger changes.
But you don’t even TRY to counter what I’ve said, except by some broke=dick dicta by the Supremes.
You must like Dred-Scot, Filburn, and Kelo.
“If CA did secede, it would be socialist kleptocracy within 10 years.”
They are not already? With oppressive zoning codes and government regulations, are they not already a pool of favored elites getting what they want while more ordinary types are refused?
Aren’t sanctuary cities a form of succession?
Didn’t realize there was a Supreme Court decision that states, basically, that your arguments are erroneous at best. Deliberately misleading, perhaps idiotic. Texas v White. “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?”
And it goes on to further this idea. If you want to argue against the reasoning of Salmon P. Chase, go ahead. But that was the last ruling on the subject. No exit.
“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.’”
Yep. Second EXPERIMENT. A “MORE” perfect union. NOT THE PERFECT and indissoluble union. Just another try.
And NOTE that the Framers understood that, and they provided for a means to amend their EXPERIMENT, under its own terms. And NOT ONE of them at the time EVEN SUGGESTED that the states subsumed their sovereignty EXCEPT as to very LIMITED matters, and NEVER without recourse to taking up their SOVEREIGNTY at will.
Duh.
The role of the Federal Government has expanded far beyond the founders original intent. Ten states could leave and it won’t solve that problem. A better option would be the constitutional convention that some conservatives have proposed, and I would not be surprised to see something like that happen in my lifetime, especially if the US gets in dire economic straits (and all signs point to yes).
I live in a state where the state constitution can be amended by petition and popular vote. This means that we have provisions in our constitution for the teacher/student ratio in class rooms and the care and feeding of hogs.
Can you imagine a constitutional convention today with west coast (and east coast) digbats as members ?
I say let the majority of CA population secede ….. but keep (create) the new, free State of Jefferson in it’s place (from all the red rural counties). We gain a Red State replacing a Blue, and add 2 more Senate seats and a hand full of Congressional seats. “F” CA … and I’m a life-long resident, born and raised there (but from parents reared in the free State of Arkansas). (thumbs-up) 😉
if they succeed in seceding, i’ll have to leave immediately, before the fascists can arrest me for owning firearms…
Reconquista Dos….. El Norte will be three cities and the rest a lot like Chiapas. Better yet… past a Constitutional Amendment that any state declaring bankruptcy reverts to a territory with no congressional representation until they have 10 years out of debt… and no US government bailouts.
States cannot declare bankruptcy.
CA is dependent on OR and TX for power, OR, NV and AZ for water. Would the current agreements still be valid with CA a country?
Colorado for water too. And no, we’ll keep our water, thank you. We need it too.
Surely you don’t believe that the bien pensants running the place understand their dependence on others.
Of course not, and don’t call me Shirley.
It would be interesting to see.The first thing I think is that this will not be a unilateral succession. If California tried it alone, we would just cut off power and water and they would be at the negotiating table within a week.
Part of California would stay,the big deal would be what part. I wonder if it would be logistically possible to move large chunks of population like San Fransisco. But I don’t know enough about the demographics to see how that would all work out.
One thing for sure, the succeeding part would have to pay to build a wall separating it from the US.
I don’t see this minicountry going long without either rejoining the US or joining Mexico. Probably joining Mexico. It would be interesting to see.
A grouping of southern, plains, and mountain states, including Texas, would be good. We’d need access to the Pacific. San Diego would fill the bill, and where would California get an army?
Its already part of Mexico so just formalize it.
I moved from Wisconsin to Colorado a few years ago, to be with family. However, Colorado is just getting Californicated, so in February of this year I moved to Texas. When the big one, whatever that is, happens, I want to be in Texas.
As Davey Crockett once said in one of those movies, “I’m going to Texas. The rest of you can go to Hell.”