#CalExit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

What is your basis for defining marriage? If you submit to the law, there are several grounds for dissolving a marriage. If you submit to the Bible, there are at least two grounds for divorce (sexual immorality and abandonment by an unbeliever).

Secession or dissolution of the Union was attempted and opposed on legal grounds under the Constitution. The question was resolved in a court of greater significance involving lawyers; The Civil War, or trial by combat seems to have resolved that question. I hope no one is foolish enough to want to appeal that decision.

---

Thinking about this...

The idea of the Union (States' Rights) offered the People to freedom to live as they choose with mutual (limited and voluntary) economic and security cooperation. This was a good plan IMHO. But they certainly didn't envision a Union where one man's election as president determines which doctor you can see, how much of your paycheck you can keep, or even if you have a fundamental right to defend yourself.

And it's interesting the see the consequences of the CW. Once secession was off the table how did FedGov behave? Did they continue to respect the states and the People or start to seize as much power as they could (Federal Reserve, Income Taxes, Prohibition, etc...)? That trend has continued, non-stop, and obliterated nearly restraint imposed by the Constitution. Look at how USSC cases are decided. When was the last time the court said to FedGov "you have no charter here?" Not in my lifetime.

So it would seem the CW was a lot more than just a referendum on secession but really on States' Right absent a Constitutional Amendment that would have legitimized Federalism on steroids.

It's gone off the rails and even with Trump's election, this system isn't fixing itself. Look at the protests happening yesterday and today. We aren't one America anymore. Looking at the EC map, we aren't even one state in most states (urban vs rural).

So why shouldn't Libs be able to live as they please and Conservatives as well? Why are 320 MILLION people forced to live under one government that decides all by a slim majority of voters? Face it, we "won" this time via the EC but demographics are destiny and the folks coming here are brining their values with them (assimilation is racist!!!).

Good luck to them trying that. They don't even have enough water to take care of themselves. Leave the country and see how that goes for you.

I agree with much of your analysis related to post Civil War growth of federal power. The 13th, 14th, 15th Amendments represent major changes to the structure of the pre Civil War power of the federal government. Despite the right/wrong discussion about the postwar changes to the Constitution, those Amendments were ratified and I do not believe any serious discussion could take place without accepting the reality that those Amendments are a part of our Constitution. While the 10th Amendment does recognize the concept of "State's Rights" the Constitution where there is no power granted to the federal government, Article VI, Clause 2 (supremacy clause) makes the power of the federal government the supreme law of the land.

I don't agree that 320 million people are forced to live under one government that decides all by a slim majority of voters. I believe that is a choice and the reality that we now live with of our own will. The Constitution can be amended. We have 27 examples of how the Constitution can be amended. If citizens want to alter or eliminate the Electoral College, there is a way to do that. If people want to make the definition of life or marriage, or just about anything else a part of the Constitution, there is a way to do that as well.

Demographics are important but not inevitable. The system is dynamic and subject to many influences. The long term trends may seem to be totally against us but that is not enough reason for me to ignore or destroy the system that has served us so well and so many of us have pledged to support and defend. Many of the people who are upset and protesting are learning an important lesson that many of us have been living with for a long time. You can't always get what you want (thanks Mick and Keith). If it wasn't for compromise, this nation would never have existed at all.

I'd love for California to put the legwork in to that. They're sucking hard on the Federal teat already. How do they expect to survive without a federally propped economy? How will they deal with their water needs if they suddenly become downstream dependent to another country?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

[snip]

While the 10th Amendment does recognize the concept of "State's Rights" the Constitution where there is no power granted to the federal government, Article VI, Clause 2 (supremacy clause) makes the power of the federal government the supreme law of the land.

---

The Supremacy Clause was specifically and intentionally restrained by the Tenth Amendment. That was the whole point.

Quote:

---

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

---

The default of "powers not delegated" is to the states, not FedGov.

So yes, FedGov law is supreme but the law itself restrains FedGov from overstep.

An Amendment delegates those powers to FedGov, sure. Are there amendments for... abortion, gay marriage, drug prohibition, healthcare, education, etc. ? Lawfully these powers, and the ability to regulate them, rest with the states yet FedGov runs the show. Disagree with the softer regs and FedGov withholds your state's taxpayers own money from the state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

[snip]

If people want to make the definition of life or marriage, or just about anything else a part of the Constitution, there is a way to do that as well.

---

Yes, agree. But that isn't happening (see examples above) and so Republicanism has become Populism. There is choice but it rests with a majority. If you are in the 49%, you lose.

The matters lately are not decided with open debate and Due Process but by a man with a pen and a phone or a judge who offers an ad hoc definition of the word "state" to mean the United States Government. Amendments didn't get us here, elections did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

[snip]

Demographics are important but not inevitable. The system is dynamic and subject to many influences. The long term trends may seem to be totally against us but that is not enough reason for me to ignore or destroy the system that has served us so well and so many of us have pledged to support and defend. Many of the people who are upset and protesting are learning an important lesson that many of us have been living with for a long time. You can't always get what you want (thanks Mick and Keith). If it wasn't for compromise, this nation would never have existed at all.

---

I'm not advocating it be destroyed, let me be clear. I'm arguing that it was already destroyed and what exists now is a complete contradiction of that system.

The compromises the Founders made seemed significant at the time and were important but again the prospect of being one election away from black letter law not meaning what it says, and having very real personal impacts because of that, would be completely foreign to them. These were people that shared a values system as well. That isn't the case today. We are being told to compromise with people who openly call for genocide, cheer on Islamic terror, and demand we fund foreign and domestic enemies or be imprisoned (via IRS).

Tax freedom day was April 26th this year (I think). So we believe the Founders fought and killed over a ~2% tax to the Crown on trade income but created a system that has resulted in a 40% tax rate?

I can't fault the Founders though. They put it in black and white as clear as could be in modern language. That fault lies with us but I can't see how this continues without a lot of bloodshed. An amicable divorce doesn't sound so bad to me.

If a group is going to succeed, I would rather it be the Democrats who want to do it since it is more likely to happen peacefully for them with Republicans in office than the other way around.
Also, California grows a lot of our food, so the water issue could get interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonsey

If a group is going to succeed, I would rather it be the Democrats who want to do it since it is more likely to happen peacefully for them with Republicans in office than the other way around.
Also, California grows a lot of our food, so the water issue could get interesting.

---

We import a lot of our fruits & vegetables from central & south America now. Cutting CA out of the loop is no skin off my nose. ALSO the same people who advocate CA leaving are the same people who told us white racist were behind weld cty wanting to form their own state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo

We import a lot of our fruits & vegetables from central & south America now. Cutting CA out of the loop is no skin off my nose. ALSO the same people who advocate CA leaving are the same people who told us white racist were behind weld cty wanting to form their own state.

---

This had slipped into the dark recesses of my memory. Could be useful in future conversations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by foxtrot

I used to have the 10th stenciled on the sides of my hardcases on the KLR. Many crazy decisions happen when you have a plotter cutter. I called it the KLR-650-F, at least you would have recognized me. Eh?

Attachment 67938

---

Got to love Givi products.