proposal that would establish California as separate nation

I think we should just split it up into 5 smaller freedom loving states. Or cut off the coastal cities and make 2 separate states. Then join 2 of the smaller ones of the east coast so we will still have 50 states.

"President Pelosi of the Sovereign Nation of Commiefornia".

Has a nice ring to it.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rondog

"President Pelosi of the Sovereign Nation of Commiefornia".

Has a nice ring to it.....

---

I bet it would be Obama or Clinton. It would be great to watch someone so use to distributing federal tax dollars try to govern without that tax base.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CavSct1983

Can you expand on this? If I am understanding you correctly in interpreting Grant's position, Grant's position has a major problem insofar as it provides two glancing blows to the very concept it seeks to defend:

1) it raises up the original 13 states to a status which is grandfathered into essentially a super-status over all subsequent states.
2) pursuant to 1, it shows that the "union" is in fact an early example of the same problem which faces the EU now, insofar as it essentially makes statehood an accident or secondary characteristic in deference to the federal level.

---

I don't have it handy but it was in Grant's autobiography and he offers a very cogent and concise rationale as to why states do not have the right to secede from the union. I said you MIGHT be able to argue that the original 13 could secede, not that the argument would be successful -- one of the reasons it would likely fail is the very "super status" you cite. It does NOT as you claim relegate statehood to an accident or secondary characteristic because being part of the union doesn't do this -- ignoring the Tenth Amendment and allowing the federal government to supercede states (as in the way Obama overrode Arizona on immigration enforcement) is what does this.

Sorry but I don't believe your logic flows in this case. Making the union of states inseperable does not create a pyramid; it simply acknowledges that the bond between states is strong and they need to work together in Congress to respect each others borders and cultures rather than threatening to pick up their toys and go home any time there's a disagreement.

I had a moment to pull up Grant's memoir on Project Gutenberg and search quickly. His rationale is in Chapter XVI but I would encourage people to read Chapter III on his view of the causes of the Mexican War first. Grant's memoir does a good job in dispelling the common picture of him as a drunk who paled before the brilliance of Robert E. Lee but somehow won anyway.

There is a lot more to read on why he thought secession was a bad idea but that the Founding Fathers would have explicitly written in the right to secede if they had foreseen the Civil War. The specific paragraph on why he thought the states DIDN'T have the right to secede is below with key points bolded and italicized by me:

Quote:

---

Doubtless the founders of our government, the majority of them at least, regarded the confederation of the colonies as an experiment. Each colony considered itself a separate government; that the confederation was for mutual protection against a foreign foe, and the prevention of strife and war among themselves. If there had been a desire on the part of any single State to withdraw from the compact at any time while the number of States was limited to the original thirteen, I do not suppose there would have been any to contest the right, no matter how much the determination might have been regretted. The problem changed on the ratification of the Constitution by all the colonies; it changed still more when amendments were added; and if the right of any one State to withdraw continued to exist at all after the ratification of the Constitution, it certainly ceased on the formation of new States, at least so far as the new States themselves were concerned. It was never possessed at all by Florida or the States west of the Mississippi, all of which were purchased by the treasury of the entire nation. Texas and the territory brought into the Union in consequence of annexation, were purchased with both blood and treasure; and Texas, with a domain greater than that of any European state except Russia, was permitted to retain as state property all the public lands within its borders. It would have been ingratitude and injustice of the most flagrant sort for this State to withdraw from the Union after all that had been spent and done to introduce her; yet, if separation had actually occurred, Texas must necessarily have gone with the South, both on account of her institutions and her geographical position. Secession was illogical as well as impracticable; it was revolution.

---

I'm sure the Teamsters and the Longshoreman union would have something to say about that. Could they function in two separate countries?