CalExit? Cali wants to secede

#151
#151
If Kalifornia did secede, it would probably take about 20 minutes for Mexico to annex their ass with a military that Kalifornia didn't have to defend itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#154
#154
Let them go. Just be sure to cut off the water. They will also have to pay for any federalnproperties that they take, oh wait, they are broke.
 
#157
#157
So California values non-citizens over citizens. Who would manicure the lawns and clean the houses of the California elite? What a horrific thought
 
#158
#158
golfballs said:
So California values non-citizens over citizens. Who would manicure the lawns and clean the houses of the California elite? What a horrific thought
Click to expand...

See, this is the thing here. States' rights applies to everyone, if you're going to go full states' rights.

It doesn't just apply to Kentucky thinking that gay marriage is bad.

If you're going to go full states' rights, then you've go to go full states' rights. There's no exceptions.

It's called "federalism."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#159
#159
If Texas hasn't had the bawls to do it, no way the Trump Fed will allow the oompa loompas in liberal land to secede.
 
#160
#160
volprof said:
See, this is the thing here. States' rights applies to everyone, if you're going to go full states' rights.

It doesn't just apply to Kentucky thinking that gay marriage is bad.

If you're going to go full states' rights, then you've go to go full states' rights. There's no exceptions.

It's called "federalism."
Click to expand...

Please correct me if I misunderstood your point. The problem I have with your logic here is that, since all the states have open borders with one another, even one state allowing illegals sanctuary leaves the rest of the nation vulnerable to illegal immigration. This is different from same-sex marriage where a state once could choose to recognize it or not. Freedom of movement is not restricted, so other states would be powerless to keep undocumented immigrants out if just one state allows it.

This is my problem with federalism: The regions of our nation have such divergent views on many issues, and this leads to different laws in each state. Then, the federal gov't tries to implement a one-size-fits-all method for the entire nation, typically enraging a few regions of states. Abortion and Same-Sex marriage are both examples of this.

Let's go ahead and this end bad marriage as a country and let every region function as a nation unto itself. Create a loose federal gov't more akin to the early European Union and let the people decide for themselves how their states should govern.

People in California & New York shouldn't tell those in Texas & Tennessee how to live their lives and govern their lands, and people in Texas & Tennessee shouldn't make decisions for those in California & New York.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#162
#162
JoeKyleVol said:
Please correct me if I misunderstood your point. The problem I have with your logic here is that, since all the states have open borders with one another, even one state allowing illegals sanctuary leaves the rest of the nation vulnerable to illegal immigration. This is different from same-sex marriage where a state once could choose to recognize it or not. Freedom of movement is not restricted, so other states would be powerless to keep undocumented immigrants out if just one state allows it.

This is my problem with federalism: The regions of our nation have such divergent views on many issues, and this leads to different laws in each state. Then, the federal gov't tries to implement a one-size-fits-all method for the entire nation, typically enraging a few regions of states. Abortion and Same-Sex marriage are both examples of this.

Let's go ahead and this end bad marriage as a country and let every region function as a nation unto itself. Create a loose federal gov't more akin to the early European Union and let the people decide for themselves how their states should govern.

People in California & New York shouldn't tell those in Texas & Tennessee how to live their lives and govern their lands, and people in Texas & Tennessee shouldn't make decisions for those in California & New York.
Click to expand...

You have a valid, logical point, but your model would be economically disastrous.

Besides, as I said earlier, I'm an American nationalist (not necessarily an "economic nationalist," but a civic and cultural one), who believes that the American people, no matter how ideologically different and despite origins, are a unique people with a unique culture, who have historically inhabited a specific land that today possesses specific borders. I don't believe that we are or should ever be a loose consortium of nations, as you seem to suggest. While I understand your argument, everything about that perspective is antithetical to my ethos, and I also think it a quick path to further division and potentially open warfare among competing "national" principalities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#163
#163
States don't have the right secede from the Union.

That was settled during the War of Northern Aggression.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#165
#165
Let the nutjobs and fruit loops go. The only things that would concern me would be the loss of military base and Pacific ports for shipping.
 
#166
#166
JoeKyleVol said:
Please correct me if I misunderstood your point. The problem I have with your logic here is that, since all the states have open borders with one another, even one state allowing illegals sanctuary leaves the rest of the nation vulnerable to illegal immigration. This is different from same-sex marriage where a state once could choose to recognize it or not. Freedom of movement is not restricted, so other states would be powerless to keep undocumented immigrants out if just one state allows it.

This is my problem with federalism: The regions of our nation have such divergent views on many issues, and this leads to different laws in each state. Then, the federal gov't tries to implement a one-size-fits-all method for the entire nation, typically enraging a few regions of states. Abortion and Same-Sex marriage are both examples of this.

Let's go ahead and this end bad marriage as a country and let every region function as a nation unto itself. Create a loose federal gov't more akin to the early European Union and let the people decide for themselves how their states should govern.

People in California & New York shouldn't tell those in Texas & Tennessee how to live their lives and govern their lands, and people in Texas & Tennessee shouldn't make decisions for those in California & New York.
Click to expand...

Well first off, you quoted volprof and I happened to see the comment that you responded to. He is engaging in distortion when it pertains to his definition of federalism.

States that enter the Union have to agree to certain base laws that will be the law of the land, no matter what. Once these basic laws (The Constitution) are agreed upon by the state, they enter knowing full well what is expected of them.

The 9th and 10th Amendment at that point will allow each state to handle matters such as abortion and same sex marriage. The result will be what you desire, which will be 50 independent entities.
 
#169
#169
nxrotf.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#173
#173
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top