
Brexit Buoys California Independence Movement - sxp
http://www.newsweek.com/calexit-brexit-buoys-california-independence-movement-474576
======
technofiend
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_im...](http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com/uploaded_images/Scalia-
Turkewitz-Letter-763174.jpg)

~~~
Gibbon1
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
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
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
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.

~~~
chasing
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.

~~~
Fej
Many states in the South are dragging down the rest of the nation.

Sorry.

That creationism thing, that climate denial thing, and that extreme
conservatism thing stunt progress in the rest of the country.

~~~
chasing
Stereotypes are fun. Stupid Southerners with their bibles and guns. See: That
was fun. I'm glad we could share this moment.

Anyway, yeah, there's plenty of lunacy in the South. Which is something that
could probably be said of any part of the world with ~100m people. And it
contains some depressed and poverty-stricken areas which deserve help rather
than derision. But I think it's lazy thinking to believe that they're
"dragging down the rest of the nation."

Sorry.

It's cool, though. You'll one day meet a Southerner and realize that, for the
most part, they're just like normal people!

~~~
Fej
I'm sorry, I don't think I was clear. For the record, I've met Southerners and
they're all nice and reasonable people. (You know what they say about Southern
hospitality.)

I was referring to each state as a whole, and especially those politicians at
the top. My post did not indicate that, and I do apologize if I offended.

~~~
chasing
I'm not offended, I just don't think it's useful to think of even states as
monolithic blocks, even if prominent politicians hailing from there are sacks
of shit.

(Actually, I think it's useful for entertainment value and that's about it.
Fuckin' Florida, amirite?)

I'm actually more annoyed by the us-versus-them-ism. "'Those People' are nutty
and bad. Dragging 'Us People' down." It's dismissive.

And the United States is unlikely to break up any time soon -- and unlikely to
start kicking out states with weak economies like Mississippi. So if you
really think some things about those areas are, in fact, dragging down the
country, maybe a helpful action would be to support policies that would help
people in those areas. Or take direct action via an organization like Teach
For America. A lot of the stereotypes you list stem from a mix of lack of
education and general fear about getting by. Those things are correctable.

------
chasing
Please.

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

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

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

~~~
tptacek
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
To give details from
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_St...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_3:_Treason)

"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."

