California going to votes for independence

Huge chunks of California would prefer to remain in the USA. So an independent CA would only consist of the most radical areas.

If they did vote to secede, before it could be enacted, the USA should just give CA back to Mexico. Everyone wins.

Just Thinking wrote:

You can add the Washington and Oregon to that and the vote would be even more favorable to leave and let them leave.

You do realize that letting all of the west coast states leave the union would deprive the U.S. of deep water ports on the Pacific and that any attempt to move goods through Canada would have to be negotiated, which could be thorny if NAFTA goes in the crapper. Whatever liberal left coast nation you envision would have a stranglehold on trade with the rest of the pacific rim. This is the type of thing that nations fight wars for.

Other reasons letting go of CA would be bad for the U.S.

1. Losing the #6 economy in the world wouldn't be good for U.S. GDP.

2. California is a major donor state. We californians get far fewer tax dollars back from Washington than what we send

3. California has recently been a model of good governance. We've removed gerrymandered congressional districts via a citizens re-districting comission and have had a budget surplus in the billions of dollars for the last couple of years (despite the "free spending l!btards" that control every statewide office).

Leaving the union would be bad for California as well

1. As already mentioned, loss of access to the Colorado River Compact

2. We were one of the first states to use up our oil. Peak oil was a reality long ago in the golden state.

3. Trade issues with the rest of the country could be thorny.

I will certainly vote against this ill conceived idea.

Not all of CA is liberal wrote:

I'm in SoCal wrote:

There are liberal dumba5ses all over this state. This has been tried many times before. It will never go through. There's also movements for splitting California into two states, North and South California.

Orange County is very red and pro-Trump.

Nope. Voted Clinton (51%) BIGLY over Trump (43%). Try to keep up.

CA no es homogenio wrote:

Huge chunks of California would prefer to remain in the USA.

LOL ... a couple of rednecks. They, and you, can move out to a red state.

US=USSR wrote:

Honkhonk wrote:

Hmmm, where have we heard that before?????? but it will probably happen to the EU.

Yes, yes, I know there are huge differences US/EU, But as a theoretical/philosophical question it's interesting. Land of the Free, except "...you can check out any time you want, but you can't ever leave.." How free is that?

The U.S. is right where the USSR was before it imploded.

I wonder if anyone is actually as stupid as you are pretending to be with that post.

CoachB wrote:

Leaving the union would be bad for California as well

1. As already mentioned, loss of access to the Colorado River Compact

2. We were one of the first states to use up our oil. Peak oil was a reality long ago in the golden state.

3. Trade issues with the rest of the country could be thorny.

1. Nope. US desperately needs CA agriculture products. Food.

2. US and the world will continue to sell oil to CA. Money.

3. US will continue to sell stuff to CA. Money.

Wonder Kid wrote:

US=USSR wrote:

The U.S. is right where the USSR was before it imploded.

I wonder if anyone is actually as stupid as you are pretending to be with that post.

You are ignorant about history. An unbelievably stupid little boy.

Monumentally stupid thread as a result of the simple fact that the chances of CA seceding are exactly equal to the chances that the EC will install Clinton as POTUS. Can you spell "zero" anyone?

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

Monumentally stupid thread as a result of the simple fact that the chances of CA seceding are exactly equal to the chances that the EC will install Clinton as POTUS. Can you spell "zero" anyone?

LOL . . . you are so blind . . . meanwhile Republicans are planning to push for a, GASP, constitutional convention to, GASP, rewrite the U.S. constitution.

===============

Rewrite the Constitution? Here's how a convention could do it

Washington (CNN)The increasing dominance of Republicans inside statehouses across the nation has spurred talk that a constitutional convention -- the very meeting that crafted the US Constitution -- could be more than just a Hail Mary thrown to conservatives.

Conservative groups and Republican lawmakers have been planning for the possibility for years, although it picked up steam three years ago after a group of state lawmakers met at George Washington's Mount Vernon estate, just outside Washington.

The issue found a bit of light in the Republican primaries, after Sen. Marco Rubio said he would support a convention and has even won the support of some liberals, like Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig, who wants to use a convention to undo the Citizens United ruling.

The requirement that 34 state legislatures approve of any convention has long seemed too high a hurdle. But a series of surprise wins for Republicans in statehouses across the country on Election Night -- including taking control of both legislative chambers in 32 states -- has put the possibility within reach.

What is a constitutional convention?

We've already had one constitutional convention -- literally The Constitutional Convention, in 1787, which gave us the Constitution -- and there hasn't been one since.

The document itself lays out the rules for calling a convention -- two-thirds of the states, or 34, have to petition Congress to call the meeting, according to Article V of the Constitution. But from there, it's open to interpretation -- and battling. Does each state get two delegates to send to the convention or do they get a number proportional to their population? Those are the kinds of questions that could make agreeing to a convention almost impossible.

Despite the long odds, a group of lawmakers -- mostly Republicans -- have been meeting since 2013 to come up with guidelines to prevent total chaos.

That group, The Assembly of State Legislatures, approved a detailed package of rules this year -- outlining everything from who would lead the group to how proposals would be debated.

What do they want?

The effort is being driven by conservative lawmakers and groups, who want a federal balanced budget amendment added to the Constitution (which would limit spending) and a broad decentralization of powers, sending more control to statehouses.

The issue has gotten broad support from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) -- a conservative group that helps state lawmakers craft legislation -- and groups supported by the Koch Brothers.

Throughout the administration of President Barack Obama, the movement gained steam as Republicans railed against Washington, although it's unclear whether the effort would lose steam with Republicans now in control in Washington.

"Our task is to lay the foundation of this building as solidly as we can, so that it can stand tall for future generations," Indiana's Senate leader, Sen. David Long, said in 2014, at a meeting of the group of lawmakers in Indianapolis. "So it can provide a shelter necessary to protect those who use this building for the advancement of state's rights, whether today, tomorrow, or at any time in the future."

Peak water wrote:

CoachB wrote:

Leaving the union would be bad for California as well

1. As already mentioned, loss of access to the Colorado River Compact

2. We were one of the first states to use up our oil. Peak oil was a reality long ago in the golden state.

3. Trade issues with the rest of the country could be thorny.

1. Nope. US desperately needs CA agriculture products. Food.

2. US and the world will continue to sell oil to CA. Money.

3. US will continue to sell stuff to CA. Money.

I don't think its as simple as that. Any split in the union would likely be acrimonious and I doubt a cozy free trade relationship would pop right up.

Very little of the nations food (apart from what is grown in the Imperial Valley) is grown in California with Colorado River water. Most of the ag water in the state comes from the Sierra Nevada snowpack which runs westward into the Sacramento and San Joaquin river systems. Loss of water from the colorado river would hit urban southern california the hardest.

Certainly trade between a proto nation california and the rest of the U.S would need to happen, but I can also imagine a scenario featuring prohibitive tarrifs and trade wars if not outright sanctions. You think the U.S. wants to lose access to the pacific rim? I think it would play a number of cards short of a ground invasion to keep CA in the union.

Orange County is very red and pro-Trump.

Actually it voted for Hillary this time around.

bye fgts.

Citron was a Dem too wrote:

Orange County is very red and pro-Trump.

Actually it voted for Hillary this time around.

By over 8%.

We would miss the brains in Silicon Valley...otherwise good riddance

CoachB wrote:

I don't think its as simple as that.

why are you so afraid? Just move to a red state.

[California] have had a budget surplus in the billions of dollars for the last couple of years

Pretty sure this is a myth. E.g. underreporting of retiree health care (a benefit) on the cash-based budget is alone a couple billion.

Worse than Enron accounting wrote:

[California] have had a budget surplus in the billions of dollars for the last couple of years

Pretty sure this is a myth. E.g. underreporting of retiree health care (a benefit) on the cash-based budget is alone a couple billion.

In short, California is able to report a balanced budget only by ignoring more than $6 billion in costs

Other states are offenders too

That's how New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R) "balanced" New Jersey's budget in 2010: by simply pushing a $3 billion pension payment from one year into the next.

Worse than Enron accounting wrote:

[California] have had a budget surplus in the billions of dollars for the last couple of years

Pretty sure this is a myth.

Link?

1949 wrote:

Polly Plumper wrote:

Many historians believe that when the Confederacy surrendered n 1865, the idea of secession was also defeated. The Union's victory set a precedent that secession would no longer be allowed. Texas' case is unusual in that is was admitted to the Union with a promise that it would never secede.

Hello, fool, Hello. California was not part of the US in 1865.

The gold rush was EIGHTEEN forty nine (1848, actually). Cali was admitted as a free (as opposed to slave) state as part of the compromise of 1850.

What a stupid.