Business, Law, Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Calexit 2

20 Comments

Now they want to negotiate a new deal:

The coalition filed a proposed constitutional amendment that would remove the word “inseparable” from the California Constitution’s declaration that the state is “an inseparable part of the United States of America.”

However, it should not be assumed the California Freedom Coalition wants total freedom. The proposed amendment holds out the possibility the state could be “sovereign and autonomous” without actually breaking away from the U.S.

Stephen Gonzales, the president of the California Freedom Coalition, told the Sacramento Bee the amendment would also open the door for negotiation. It would give the state’s governor the freedom to do a deal with Washington for the independence of California.

I guess they’re ignoring those pesky issues like needing the consent of Congress.

20 thoughts on “Calexit 2”

  1. Two non-negotiable demands should be for a West Virginia solution, that parts of the state that chose to stay, and can then form new states and territories. The other is that current interstate compacts have to be renegotiated and approved by the Senate as treaties. (And that includes dealings any new state of Mojave or Jefferson.) Make any so-called “Calexit” as painful as possible, and protect as many people as possible who choose not to participate in this folly.

  2. “The proposed amendment holds out the possibility the state could be “sovereign and autonomous” without actually breaking away from the U.S.”

    Wow…sovereign and autonomous BUT still being a part of the US?

    Not only is that a non-sequitur…it’s the biggest fattest example of having your cake and eating it too that I’ve ever seen.

    These people are insane. Certifiable.

  3. Sovereign and autonomous but still in USA

    Like Scottish Independence at the heart of Europe!

    Or (soft) BREXIT

  6. The goal is for California to be kind of like Scotland, except in the US. They will still pay their taxes but be able to make more consequential decisions for themselves. Everyone wins. Plus having a separating the inland counties from the coast would mean the Feds would have another taker state unable to support itself.

    1. They will still pay their taxes but be able to make more consequential decisions for themselves.

      Such as…? Like whether or not to abide by the Bill of Rights?

    2. What you mean is one of the most dynamic economies in the US wouldn’t be as available to fund backwater red state’s “entitlement” programs (both corporate and individual).

  8. What it sounds like is that the Governor of California would be allowed to negotiate some sort of treaty witht the President. I believe then that the treaty only needs to be confirmed by the senate in order to be enforced.

    1. a) That’s not how the Constitution works and b) I can’t imagine the Senate approving it even if it did. States cannot “make treaties” with the federal government. Or with other countries.

  9. Yeah, i know. But how else would they do it? A bill, an executive order, or something else? It is all conjecture anyway. Like you said, the Senate would not approve it. They understand how important California is to the US economy, anyway.

  10. Okay i understand. But why aren’t Congress going bananza about the climate agreement between China and California then?

    1. a) They’re busy with other things and b) it’s not their job to enforce the law. It’s the Justice Department that should be filing suit if it goes forward.

Comments are closed.