5 ms·

Brexit Buoys California Independence Movement

18 points by sxp 10y ago

technofiend 10y ago
From Wikipedia: Current Supreme Court precedent, in Texas v. White, holds that the states cannot secede from the union by an act of the state.[2] More recently, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated, "If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede."[3] Still, tongues are wagging about a #Texit as well. Neither will never happen, IMHO. https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/jrt01 https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/jrt01 http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com/uploaded_images/Scalia-Turkewitz-Letter-763174.jpg http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com/uploaded_im...
- Gibbon1 10y ago
  I've tried sometimes to point out to people that States can secede, divide into parts, transfer parts from one to the other[1] or devolve. It merely requires an act of congress and the state in question. This usually induces frothing at the mouth though[2]. [1] More recently California and Arizona exchanged some bits the better to align the state boundaries with the Colorado river. It required a number of years of negotiations, and then Arizona, California, and the Federal government had to pass legislation. [2] I think secessionists dislike the idea that leaving in theory is easy. Because it's a tell that there isn't any real support for their position.
  - chasing 10y ago
    I believe what's implicit in these arguments is the word "unilaterally." It remains illegal for a state to unilaterally secede from the Union. (North v. South, 1865) The article above implies that Mr. Marinelli is targeting Californians with his "Yes California" campaign. If he wishes to succeed/secede, he'll need to convince Americans from all over the place that it's a good idea.
xivzgrev 10y ago
I didnt read article but this makes zero sense, i didnt want to justify its existence with a click. Its apples and oranges. California is part of the united states, a country. Uk was part of an organization of countries. Most importantly, the EU treaties had an exit clause - the US constitution does not. In fact, remember what happened last time some states tried to exit the US?
- letitleak 10y ago
  The biggest trick in US history was the South convincing the North that the reward for winning was keeping them. The North is stillpaying today.
  - ivraatiems 10y ago
    I'm not sure that's fair. The reason there was a Civil War at all was in large part that the North didn't think secession from the union was legal. They wanted the South to be part of the USA from the beginning, and I don't think ever regarded them as or recognized them as another nation. And the way the South was treated during reconstruction doesn't suggest the South had any say on the matter in the end.
    - letitleak 10y ago
      I'm not contesting any of those views, I am saying that the costs to the North were significant and the drain of resources caused by the poorer South continues to be significant. Using the civil war to justify another military action against a portion of the country that simply votes out would be an example of learning nothing from the past.
  - chasing 10y ago
    Are you trying to argue that the states formerly in the Confederacy haven't made huge contributions to the culture and economy of the United States? Many, many good people in the South would beg to differ and probably find the notion that they're dragging down the rest of the nation offensive.
johan_larson 10y ago
Isn't advocating secession still on paper an act of treason?
- tptacek 10y ago
  No. The founders of the US were so nervous about abuses of the term "treason" by tyrannical governments that they defined the term in the text of the Constitution. Advocacy of secession has never been treasonous, and is protected by the 1st Amendment.
  - dalke 10y ago
    To give details from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_3:_Treason https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_St... "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." and as an example of the nervousness, in Federalist No. 43 James Madison wrote: "But as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it, and restraining the Congress, even in punishing it, from extending the consequences of guilt beyond the person of its author."
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
chasing 10y ago
Please. Hacker Newsers know the difference between the "Brexit" and a state independence movement, right?
- oxide 10y ago
  Yes. The point, I think, is that state independence movements don't seem to know the difference.

18 points by sxp 10y ago

From Wikipedia: Current Supreme Court precedent, in Texas v. White, holds that the states cannot secede from the union by an act of the state.[2] More recently, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated, "If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede."[3] Still, tongues are wagging about a #Texit as well. Neither will never happen, IMHO. https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/jrt01 https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/jrt01 http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com/uploaded_images/Scalia-Turkewitz-Letter-763174.jpg http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com/uploaded_im...

Gibbon1 10y ago
I've tried sometimes to point out to people that States can secede, divide into parts, transfer parts from one to the other[1] or devolve. It merely requires an act of congress and the state in question. This usually induces frothing at the mouth though[2]. [1] More recently California and Arizona exchanged some bits the better to align the state boundaries with the Colorado river. It required a number of years of negotiations, and then Arizona, California, and the Federal government had to pass legislation. [2] I think secessionists dislike the idea that leaving in theory is easy. Because it's a tell that there isn't any real support for their position.
- chasing 10y ago
  I believe what's implicit in these arguments is the word "unilaterally." It remains illegal for a state to unilaterally secede from the Union. (North v. South, 1865) The article above implies that Mr. Marinelli is targeting Californians with his "Yes California" campaign. If he wishes to succeed/secede, he'll need to convince Americans from all over the place that it's a good idea.

xivzgrev 10y ago

I didnt read article but this makes zero sense, i didnt want to justify its existence with a click. Its apples and oranges. California is part of the united states, a country. Uk was part of an organization of countries. Most importantly, the EU treaties had an exit clause - the US constitution does not. In fact, remember what happened last time some states tried to exit the US?

letitleak 10y ago
The biggest trick in US history was the South convincing the North that the reward for winning was keeping them. The North is stillpaying today.
- ivraatiems 10y ago
  I'm not sure that's fair. The reason there was a Civil War at all was in large part that the North didn't think secession from the union was legal. They wanted the South to be part of the USA from the beginning, and I don't think ever regarded them as or recognized them as another nation. And the way the South was treated during reconstruction doesn't suggest the South had any say on the matter in the end.
  - letitleak 10y ago
    I'm not contesting any of those views, I am saying that the costs to the North were significant and the drain of resources caused by the poorer South continues to be significant. Using the civil war to justify another military action against a portion of the country that simply votes out would be an example of learning nothing from the past.
- chasing 10y ago
  Are you trying to argue that the states formerly in the Confederacy haven't made huge contributions to the culture and economy of the United States? Many, many good people in the South would beg to differ and probably find the notion that they're dragging down the rest of the nation offensive.

johan_larson 10y ago

Isn't advocating secession still on paper an act of treason?

tptacek 10y ago
No. The founders of the US were so nervous about abuses of the term "treason" by tyrannical governments that they defined the term in the text of the Constitution. Advocacy of secession has never been treasonous, and is protected by the 1st Amendment.
- dalke 10y ago
  To give details from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_3:_Treason https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_St... "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." and as an example of the nervousness, in Federalist No. 43 James Madison wrote: "But as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it, and restraining the Congress, even in punishing it, from extending the consequences of guilt beyond the person of its author."
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

chasing 10y ago

Please. Hacker Newsers know the difference between the "Brexit" and a state independence movement, right?

oxide 10y ago
Yes. The point, I think, is that state independence movements don't seem to know the difference.