Can you numb skulls explain...

[Pontiuth Pilate]

I've been over this before, it is called international law that trumps the supreme court decision.

International law doesn't trump anything! The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land!

I mearly ment to demonstrate that there is a precedent for nations seperating without war.

When there were justifiable differences. There aren't in the case of California, as I demonstrated.

California culturally distinct from the rest of America, as, if not more, than Canada is from America.

That's BS. You're talking about isolated enclaves like Berkeley and SF. But the recent gubernatorial election proved you wrong. The majority of Californians are quite centrist, quite normal, and quite American.

Should America invade Canada to annex it into the Union because they are culturally similiar? That is what your logic implies.


Er no, that's what YOUR logic implies, when you spout about the "right to self-determination" based on culture, ethnicity, language, etc.

I merely believe in convenience.

Not that it would come to this, but if you ask any foriegner which he liked better, California or the rest of America, he would pick California.

Not when his business is at stake, and not when his country signs pacts with Washington to refuse trade to San Francisco.

Your argument is repulsive, you sound like a Indonesian general talking about East Timor.

The world works the same all over its surface.

 

[Duddha]

Yet of course, I'm sure you admire the Southern Confederacy's attempt at freedom from the Union? Or do I smell a double standard?

Yes, and the difference is called SLAVERY!

Not to be a spelling Nazi, but it's "opposition", not "opponancy".

come on, what is the point of this? I'm churning these things out like quickly.

Even if your sweeping, unfounded generalization were true, "liking better" does not equate to "willing to go against the US on their behalf."

Lets expand on this. What would be the international reaction? Perhaps the world would cower in fear and say nothing, but would the US have legitimacy in the eyes of any nation? (We did go to war with Serbia on the other side of the same issue) If the US chose to invade California, the US would loose the right to use the moral high ground on any issue. The US would be forced to maintain its leadership by military might alone, something it could not do for very long. No, from the standpoint of the US, retaining California by force would be a bad decision.

 

[Duddha]

International law doesn't trump anything! The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land!

Have you read the UN Charter or the Declarations of Human Rights?

That's BS. You're talking about isolated enclaves like Berkeley and SF. But the recent gubernatorial election proved you wrong. The majority of Californians are quite centrist, quite normal, and quite American.

You are using the election of a Austrian immigrant movie actor on a liberal republican platform to show that California is like the rest of the counrty? haha

 

[Speedo]

Yes, and the difference is called SLAVERY!

I quote you: "self determination is a right."

Lets expand on this. What would be the international reaction? Perhaps the world would cower in fear and say nothing, but would the US have legitimacy in the eyes of any nation?

Of course. The rest of the world is smart enough to realize that neither the UN or any other international body has the right or ability to overrule the sovereign laws of a democratic country on an issue like seccession.

f the US chose to invade California, the US would loose the right to use the moral high ground on any issue.

Nonsense. They're simply being treated like any other criminal.

The US would be forced to maintain its leadership by military might alone, something it could not do for very long. No, from the standpoint of the US, retaining California by force would be a bad decision.

This sounds very familiar... probably because its just another bit that we heard 143 years ago. Wasn't true then, not true now.

 

[Duddha]

I quote you: "self determination is a right."

And slavery is not, Linclon knew this when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, it legitimized the war. It stopped the British and French from intervening.

Nonsense. They're simply being treated like any other criminal.

It would seriously compromise US authority.

This sounds very familiar... probably because its just another bit that we heard 143 years ago. Wasn't true then, not true now.

1. 143 years ago the US was not the sole superpower it is today.
2. 143 years ago legitimate international law did not exist.
3. 143 years ago is not today.

 

[Sims2789]

Originally posted by Duddha
Throughout all the debates about California secession on the boards only one signal argument against California secession has ever come up I, nor anyother, have not been able to counter in a way that was satifactory for the opponancy. That agrument is the prospect of America invading California and keeping it by force and violence. However, I believe the reason this one point cannot be resolved has less to do with the valitaty of the proponacy's response and more to do with the perspective of the opponancy. The fact that the opponancy cannot yield, to the notion that affairs amongs peoples and nation ought to be carried out by law rather than power, validates the cause of California secession. It demonstates the differences that justify secession. Attempting to scare with the spector of violence means nothing, self determination is a right.

i believe that if we had enough will and determination(and didn't mind going broke) that we could laucnh a guerilla war against the USA that would eventually turn public opinion in the USA in favor of Californian independence(to stop the bloodshed) so that the USA has to withdraw. only problem is that there aren't to many people here who support seccesion.

 

[bobgote]

Let california secceed. group all the pot smoking hippies in one state and cut it off from the rest of the place. regular californians can move somewhere else i guess. it's mostly mexicans anyway.

anyways, as per the original question, the rubbish proposition trying to change the 2/3 majority to 55% nonsense. it is 2/3 so that the party in power doesn't just do whatever the hell it wants.

 

[Sims2789]

^what do u have against mexicans? their skin not light enough for you? although i do not agree with Duddha about the seccesionist issue, i can see how he can support it due to the belief that many Americans are Californiaphobes(you're one of them!).

 

[covok48]

About the Question of Secession:

The Civil War answered that long ago. Case closed.

 

[stormbind]

I would immagine the Californians have a pretty strong case for independence when the US Constitution denies their chosen Governor the right to run for Presidency.

Now I ain't saying that a Governor is anything like a President, but collectively are part of the carreer group and there is a clear bias against a fairly elected politician of California.

 

[Sims2789]

they only did that to keep Alexander Hamilton(i think) from running as he was a Jamaican.

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by covok48
About the Question of Secession:

The Civil War answered that long ago. Case closed.

Oh I'm sure a new Civil War can be arranged if people feel stongly enough about it

And how would Washington DC react? Slaughter millions of Californians in front of NBC, CNN, BBC and whoever else? It would surely cause an outcry and what do you think the rest of the American population would do?

Is this constant reminder of the civil war some kind of terror tactic?

 

[Duddha]

anyways, as per the original question, the rubbish proposition trying to change the 2/3 majority to 55% nonsense. it is 2/3 so that the party in power doesn't just do whatever the hell it wants.

The 2/3 is indefenseable, it allows for minority rule. The overwhelming majority of state lawmakers are democrats, elected that way, but the Republicans dictate what they want in the budget because of the 2/3 rule. California is only one of two (could be 3, not exactly sure) states with the same law. If 2/3 vote for a budget works so well why isn't it that way in Congress? Can you imagine what kind of mayham that would cause? Look no futher than the ongoing budget battles in California.

 

[KaNick]

I agree that 2/3 is a little high, but to succeed because of this is irrational. Why give up on the US so quickly when it would be more desirable to simply change this. Also I don't see how succeeding would change the 2/3 thing. Unless it is a Federaly inflicted rule (which I doubt).

The only reason to succeed when you are in a Democracy is when your rights are being trampled on. This is not a case of that.

 

[Duddha]

I agree that 2/3 is a little high, but to succeed because of this is irrational. Why give up on the US so quickly when it would be more desirable to simply change this. Also I don't see how succeeding would change the 2/3 thing. Unless it is a Federaly inflicted rule (which I doubt).

Sorry, this Thread is confusing. Its offical topic is the 2/3 budget rule and prop 56. California secession is a side topic that follows me around, it is unrelated.

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by GrandMasta Nick
The only reason to succeed when you are in a Democracy is when your rights are being trampled on. This is not a case of that.

That was my point with the politicians.

If their elected Governor is not an elligable Presidency candidate, then their rights as "voters" are being trampled on. As in, their prefered representative cannot go all the way..

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

I'm churning these things out like quickly.

I'm like not surprised.

Lets expand on this. What would be the international reaction? Perhaps the world would cower in fear and say nothing, but would the US have legitimacy in the eyes of any nation? (We did go to war with Serbia on the other side of the same issue) If the US chose to invade California, the US would loose the right to use the moral high ground on any issue. The US would be forced to maintain its leadership by military might alone, something it could not do for very long. No, from the standpoint of the US, retaining California by force would be a bad decision.

This is unadulterated bull****. No government on earth would applaud a secession unless it had a direct political interest in it - especially when so many of our allies [Turkey, Israel, India, and Russia just to name a few] are besieged by separatists themselves. What country could possibly benefit from having to choose between California's trade and the Union's trade - but not both? "Legitimacy"? What are you smoking? This is a question of pure practicality.

Have you read the UN Charter or the Declarations of Human Rights?

What do they have to do with this? They don't trump any nation's laws unless the international community has the power to enforce them and WANTS to enforce them.

overwhelming majority of state lawmakers are democrats, elected that way, but the Republicans dictate what they want in the budget because of the 2/3 rule.

If it's less than 2 out of every 3 legislators, then it isn't an "overwhelming majority" now is it? Use your head.

If their elected Governor is not an elligable Presidency candidate, then their rights as "voters" are being trampled on. As in, their prefered representative cannot go all the way..

So, because I wasn't born here [born in Israel] then my rights are being trampled on because I can't run for President, even if as a citizen I can still vote?

Sorry, but the yoke of oppression doesn't seem to be weighing too hard on my shoulders.

 

[EdwardTking]

Originally posted by stormbind

Free California!!

I don't have any interest in change, but I think that under WW2 treaties it was agreed that the largest powers would award independence to any state they controlled that requested it.

Yes; it was the Atlantic Charter; drawn up by Rooseveldt and Churchill. Churchill did not like Rooseveldt's drafting on this particular point because it meant acknowledging that India could leave the empire and he still hoped then to do a self government and autonomy deal within the concept of a wider British Empire of dominion states, but he signed it in the end.

 

[Duddha]

I'm like not surprised.

You're, like, not a friendly person.

What do they have to do with this? They don't trump any nation's laws unless the international community has the power to enforce them and WANTS to enforce them.

So you haven't read either and don't believe in international law. I think I can leave this to everyone one else to decide what kind of a person you are.

This is unadulterated bull****. No government on earth would applaud a secession unless it had a direct political interest in it - especially when so many of our allies [Turkey, Israel, India, and Russia just to name a few] are besieged by separatists themselves. What country could possibly benefit from having to choose between California's trade and the Union's trade - but not both? "Legitimacy"? What are you smoking? This is a question of pure practicality.

Basicly, you believe if the people of California decided to secede in a transparent and legitimate referendum, the United States would be correct in occupying California by force. Before you go any further in this argument I want you to agree that a violent occupation of California would be wrong. If you can't do that, this discussion can go no further because you have no moral sense.

On the issue of practicality, California is the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world depending on the year, equal to France. Do you think the US could succesfully violently occupy France? California is the center of world culture, trade, entertainment, and attention, do you think the violence associated with an occupation will go unnoticed by the rest of the world? Imagine what that would mean for America.

If it's less than 2 out of every 3 legislators, then it isn't an "overwhelming majority" now is it? Use your head.

The state democrats are one vote short of 2/3 in both the state house and senate. I believe that constitutes a overwhelming majority.

 

[covok48]

Oh my God, this crap has to stop...

"Oh I'm sure a new Civil War can be arranged if people feel stongly enough about it"

Do people feel THAT strongly about it? I'm sure there are groups that want to reside in their own independant American nations too, but they mostly live in northern Idaho and the deep south. You get the drift...

And how would Washington DC react? Slaughter millions of Californians in front of NBC, CNN, BBC and whoever else? It would surely cause an outcry and what do you think the rest of the American population would do?

No, because 98% Californians would oppose sucession and thus overwhelm the other 2%. The illusion that millions of Californians will fight till the death for their "nation" is nonsense. Most Californians, like the rest of the nation, will consider this a terrorist act and thus be pleased with the notjobs being removed from power.

"Is this constant reminder of the civil war some kind of terror tactic?"

Well if you have no respect for the 850,000 who died over a century ago to keep this nation together, yes you'd be considered a terrorist, and yes you would hang for treason.