TexasCHLforum.com

chasfm11 wrote:Several States, including CA (NJ, CO, MD) have had secession discussions within themselves. In CA, there is a part of the geography would would be very unlikely to want to leave the US.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/us/13secession.html

I hope that this discussion continues. When the Progressives had Federal power, they were only too willing to overrun the 10th Amendment to achieve their goals. Now that they are the "oppressed" rather than the oppressors, It would not surprise me to see a big push for States rights - and I would vigorously applaud. While it CA for the moment that is in the secession limelight, the politics in Oregon and Washington are pretty close to the blue parts of CA. They will be pushing for more autonomy. Depending on how this plays out, that could be a good thing.

These kinds of complaints are a common theme in California's rural counties. San Bernardino County, by the way, is the largest county in the U.S. My aunt and cousins live in and around Santa Maria, which is at the extreme northern edge of Santa Barbara county. My cousin is a retired well known major league pitcher, and Sta Barbara county wanted to use his name on a local community baseball park; but then they cut some of the funding and diverted it to Sta Barbara, which is a VERY wealthy city, and the county seat. He had to threaten them with a lawsuit to remove his name from the park unless they kep the funding. Sta Maria, by contrast, has a lot of poorer folks, farm workers, etc., and Bryn volunteered a lot of his time locally to do baseball camps and such for local kids.......which the fat cats in the county seat were happy to shut down so they could reallocate the funding. It took the threat of a lawsuit over the use of his name to make them crawl back into their limos and give up the fight.

And the northern counties of California have been taking about forming the state of Jefferson for a long time. Of course, it would have to be approved in that snake pit, Sacramento. Ain't gonna happen without some people willing to do violence to achieve it.

ELB wrote:As an intellectual and moral matter, the rights to self-government, free speech, self-defense, etc are based on the notion they are inherent to our existence and given by God.

As a practical matter, they are based on violence, on the use of force -- the Founding Fathers and the Continental Army and militias beat the British. There was no "legal" basis for us to separate -- King George III and his government wanted to hang our forefathers as traitors, and he would have been quite "legal" in doing so. Having created a separation -- a secession -- by force, we created a new legal basis among ourselves and agreed to abide by it. (For that matter, all law is ultimately about violence, the legal system simply adjudicates who gets to do "legal" violence to whom, and for what reasons). Ultimately there was a treaty signed between Britain and the confederation of American states -- I suppose that could be said to be a "legal" basis, but it was ratification of a secession already established by force.

The US Constitution and the laws derived from it (and the laws not derived from it!) do not provide for dismantling the US --there is no "legal" way to secede, there is no mechanism that via constitutional article nor legal statute provides for secession.

Do not confuse what might be "right", God-given or otherwise, with what is "legal." We try to get them to overlap, but they are not always 100% congruent.

"sigh" what is it that makes people so overwhelmingly invested in the false notion of 'might makes right" ? It is a lie.

ELB wrote:As an intellectual and moral matter, the rights to self-government, free speech, self-defense, etc are based on the notion they are inherent to our existence and given by God.

As evidenced by this, as it's called common or natural law and is the founding law of this nation, as identified in the declaration independence. You recall this line? "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

Press on with your might makes right thing......

wil,

What's your perspective?

Politically left of center?

Or...?

wil wrote:

ELB wrote:As an intellectual and moral matter, the rights to self-government, free speech, self-defense, etc are based on the notion they are inherent to our existence and given by God.

As a practical matter, they are based on violence, on the use of force -- the Founding Fathers and the Continental Army and militias beat the British. There was no "legal" basis for us to separate -- King George III and his government wanted to hang our forefathers as traitors, and he would have been quite "legal" in doing so. Having created a separation -- a secession -- by force, we created a new legal basis among ourselves and agreed to abide by it. (For that matter, all law is ultimately about violence, the legal system simply adjudicates who gets to do "legal" violence to whom, and for what reasons). Ultimately there was a treaty signed between Britain and the confederation of American states -- I suppose that could be said to be a "legal" basis, but it was ratification of a secession already established by force.

The US Constitution and the laws derived from it (and the laws not derived from it!) do not provide for dismantling the US --there is no "legal" way to secede, there is no mechanism that via constitutional article nor legal statute provides for secession.

Do not confuse what might be "right", God-given or otherwise, with what is "legal." We try to get them to overlap, but they are not always 100% congruent.

"sigh" what is it that makes people so overwhelmingly invested in the false notion of 'might makes right" ? It is a lie.

ELB wrote:As an intellectual and moral matter, the rights to self-government, free speech, self-defense, etc are based on the notion they are inherent to our existence and given by God.

As evidenced by this, as it's called common or natural law and is the founding law of this nation, as identified in the declaration independence. You recall this line? "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

Press on with your might makes right thing......

I think you need to read more closely. He specifically said "do not confuse what might be right, God-given or otherwise, with what is legal.

TxRVer wrote:Doesn't California pipe a lot of water from out of state?

California announces their new flag.

California army

Medley86 wrote:California army

Is that an armored Prius ?

Lynyrd wrote:
I think you need to read more closely. He specifically said "do not confuse what might be right, God-given or otherwise, with what is legal.

I had a startling experience at the McDonald's this morning, an encounter with a tough group, and it caused me to rethink any lighthearted aspect to California's secession. I'm afraid California secessionists may be one step ahead of us all.

They were at the next booth. They were that close.

At first I just thought, meh, kids, but then I realized that skinny pants and emo shirts with rainbows and sparkles have become the BDU of a potentially hostile foreign adversary. What I first heard as casual but incomprehensible banter was the patois of patriots, sworn allegiant to otherworldly philosophy antipathetic to my beliefs. What good what was in my Alien Gear against truly alien adversaries bearing pretentious latte?

That's when it hit me. As surely as indigestion follows Quarter Pounders. California can win. Our military - our best, toughest units - will be at California's mercy.

All it takes is for California to fight on their home turf. If they let us come to them the war will end as soon as it starts, not well for us.

Once US Federal law is no longer the native rule in the new Republik, military privilege over local authority will no longer exist for our side. At the border, enforced by signs, our troops won't be allowed high capacity magazines, semiautomatic rifles, anything not on California's nice guns list, and will have to carry what they can to the battle field with ammunition and weapons separated.

We don't stand a chance. How could an assault into their territory work? They might have nothing more than flintlocks, but our troops would be helpless while their firing pins were being microstamped and registered.

And they are infiltrating Austin. I don't know about y'all, but for me it's time to give in. I've always eaten the fish, not the bait, but I think I'll give sushi a try. Just to start getting used to what's coming.

The times, they are a-changing.

If they have the guts to actually leave, instead of their usual whining, it would be a great day.

Medley86 wrote:California army

The license plate is blurred, but you can still make out that it's an Oregon plate, not a California plate.

CleverNickname wrote:

Medley86 wrote:California army

The license plate is blurred, but you can still make out that it's an Oregon plate, not a California plate.

What's the difference these days?

Well, the picture is mocking California for its restrictive gun laws, saying that if it were to raise some sort of army that it would be armed with Nerf. Oregon has its problems, but terrible gun laws really aren't one of them.