Unfortunately this runs into constitutional problems. While the spineless subhuman creatures in congress and the supreme court seem to have no problem with Trump and his administration ignoring the constitution I fully expect them to come down hard on any state that does so (at least in cases that go against Trump and his policies).
Don’t have to care about being unconstitutional if you’re not part of the union.
That’s great in theory but just as unrealistic in practice for California as it always has been for Texas. The single biggest stumbling block for any state to leave the union for any reason is the military. Most of the other problems can be resolved within the borders of the state, but the disposition of existing and theoretical new military hardware, personnel, and bases will always be a sticking point even assuming the federal government and the other states are willing to let them leave.
Any attempt to leave the US that has any hope of succeeding would be a very long and protracted process that would make Brexit look breakneck in comparison. We’re talking at least a couple decades at a minimum.
It’s either that or another civil war and that has so many variables I’m not sure anyone has any hope of predicting how that would turn out.
Water is more of an issue than the military. The US relies heavily on California for food so that would be a bargaining chip.
Economics in general. California is responsible for a significant chunk of the entire US GDP as well as being one of the primary shipping hubs. My point was more along the lines that these other problems are tractable, you could for instance negotiate trade deals between the rest of the US and California. The military on the other hand is a much tougher problem akin to unscrambling an egg. There’s no obvious way to disentangle California from the greater US military.
Any military option automatically removes any economic benefits that could have been possible in peace time. As soon as any conflict appears, everyone will spend more money on fighting, defending that in saving or creating profit. No matter who may “win”, everyone will lose and it would take decades to recover from it.
Did you mean to respond to someone else? This seems like a bit of a non-sequitur from my comment.
That’s how you get invaded by the military
Thankfully CA can fund its.own military once we no longer need to send charity to all the red states with dirt for an economy. Actually, our police forces in the state routinely spend more money than entire foreign militaries. I’m sure with a couple trade deals and strategic defense pacts that California can easily become it’s own country.
We could do without almonds and wine. The US has more than enough soybeans and corn and wheat and potatoes go around. Nobody is going to starve without California’s agriculture.
Why are you growing water intensive almonds in what should be a desert anyway?
Most vegetables and fruit not imported from Mexico are grown in California. Enjoy your scurvy.
That’s the problem … if you are damned if you stay and damned if you leave … everyone starts weighing the options of either situation
The choices for staying become … stay and beholden to federal government that ties your hands, manipulates your economy and uses you for their benefit while never allowing you to do what your people want for themselves
or … secede and fight a political, economic and possibly even a military conflict to decide your own future
either options is terrible in the long run (if things continue as they are) but staying means things stay indefinitely terrible while seceding gives a higher chance of political autonomy.
If you’re going that far, why wouldn’t you want the other states? Just take over the whole government instead of trying to secede.
For one, because the way that the government is set up means that you would need the cooperation of at least 26 states to ensure control of the legislative and executive branches, and even then, the Supreme Court justices are lifetime appointments, so you’d have to wait a long time to get the judicial branch on board. So you’d have to wage a war of conquest to secure the entire country. For another, much of the country is a burden on California’s economy. They’re the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world on their own, and many of the states are dependent on their tax money and produce.
I think if you’re seriously talking about seceding, the most practical/logical plan would be a coalition of like-minded states seceding to form their own nation or EU style group of nation-states. The most likely to consider it would probably be the west coast and the northern end of the east coast (New England specifically), which would be a logistical nightmare for everyone involved - both for the US having hostile nations on all sides as well as any seceding states trying to trade across a hostile country between them. Though aid from friendly countries would be easily available, as both coasts border Canada (and Mexico on the west) and have plenty of infrastructure for trade internationally.
wage a war of conquest to secure the entire country
There’s not a large difference between that and a war for secession. Either way it’s violence.
One is holding ground that you already own vs. taking ground by force. From a military standpoint, there’s a massive difference.
Not that I disagree that it’s violence either way, mind you. It’s just a different scale and situation.
The single biggest stumbling block for any state to leave the union for any reason is the military. Most of the other problems can be resolved within the borders of the state, but the disposition of existing and theoretical new military hardware, personnel, and bases will always be a sticking point even assuming the federal government and the other states are willing to let them leave.
I mean it’s California. At that point just get a few neighboring states on board, take all the military hardware and shit and be like “Wanna go to war over it?”.
Civil war it is.
Leaving the union? Yep you guessed it, unconstitutional. Secession would absolutely cause a war
Yeah, if things were so bad that you were considering secession you might as well cut to the chase and just try to overthrow the US government because they would absolutely go after you hard
P.s. for any government officials who read the above comment, I’m not advocating for overthrow of your stupid little clubhouse, I’m pointing out why secession is a bad idea. Also, quit wasting my tax dollars looking at stupid shit.
Would you rather be complicit with fascism or fight for something better?
Also, you’re overlooking how much CA funds the rest of the nation. Flyover states do not function without funding from states like CA and TX. Take the west coast from the rest of the US and all that’s left struggles to qualify as third world lmfao
So? It’s probably worth it at this point. I’d enlist.
and balkanization of the states begins.
Republicans would absolutely love it if the most populous state that consistently sends huge numbers of Democratic representatives to DC was out of the picture. You think Democrats can’t do shit now, see what happens when you lose 40+ democrats from the House.
Won’t matter to me. We’ll leave to US to the Republicans.
Yeah, I’m not cool with leaving my friends and family to just die because they don’t live in CA.
That wouldn’t be happening because they don’t live in CA, it would happen because of Trump who exists in this role whether CA leaves the union or not.
Do more democratic Senators and Representatives do anything or not? Because 6 months ago it was vote blue no matter who, now suddenly it doesn’t matter if we jettison 2 Democratic senators and 40+ Democratic reps as long as you get yours.
The “vote blue no matter who” people were just “blue MAGA” folks trying to justify their support of genocide and those senators and reps along with the DNC leadership are now happily sitting on their asses while Trump’s power goes unchecked, so who cares whether they keep their titles? It’s not as if they’re actually using their positions to fight back. They’re just acting as controlled opposition.
Tell them to move.
Yarvin’s technobrocratic dystopia will have a bunch of these little states run by CEOs, and you wouldn’t have any voice in how it’s run, but you would be free to leave. Is that what you want?
“Sell your home and leave your jobs and maybe it’ll work out” doesn’t fly as well as you think.
Constitution? What constitution ?
What’s good for the goose…
If the union doesn’t provide any benefits and only costs money and prevents your state from functioning as well as it could and the union only makes solutions harder to solve … why stay in the union?
States stay together because of mutual benefit, not because of a document or promises.
And you could force a state to stay in a union by force but the cost of doing that far outweighs the benefits of a peaceful union.
Don’t forget they’re Democrats.
When the courts rule against them they’ll just meekly comply.
Is your state governor doing anything to oppose Trump?
If memory serves right the person you are responding to is probably British. Or at the very least I don’t think they are American, so don’t take much of what they have to say particularly seriously.
If they are british I hope that they are paying attention and doing what she can to keep the UK from following in our foot steps even farther.
See my other response to peregrin5 but in addition you’re assuming rational actors all around. Actual reality is far more messy with many of those involved making decisions based more on feelings than any in depth reasoning. States stay together because there’s no obvious alternative. There’s no mechanism for a state to leave the union and doing so requires solving many problems that have no obvious answers.
They could implement this by just not charging the duties at the ports in California and see who blinks first.
Do they have control over that? I assumed that was handled by feds
Federal and local government are likely both involved. With the doge cuts, who knows how many boots they actually have on the ground for this these days?
Let the feds try to enforce it then. Texas immigration officers basically kicked the feds out when they started doing federally illegal shit, the federal government is barely held together these days. Force them to do something about it. If the flow of money between California and the US stops, California is the big winner so they have all the leverage in the world.
The Trump administration has demonstrated that the constitution doesn’t really matter. Why keep pretending like this is some sort of sacred immutable text? The spell has been lifted.
Just because Trump and his goons are ignoring it doesn’t mean his cronies in congress and the supreme court won’t still use it to attack anyone they want to.
yes, without any shared understanding around whether we enforce all laws or just some, law books are just reems of scratchy toilet paper. So are everyones holy books, and any international agreements we have.
Trump doesnt care about laws and law enforcement has openly hated the public for a long time. Their oaths to serve the law are a vanity that they jettison whenever its convenient.
And Biden/Harris violating god knows how many genocide and arms laws for zionist $ and then losing the election and support across every voting demographic didnt help matters. I wish I could go back in time to the day Obama picked Biden as his running mate and shake Obama until he picks someone else.
The article states California is negotiating with other countries to exclude California from those countries’ retaliatory tarrifs on US goods.
There’s nothing the federal government can do about that.
That’s not actually true, there are things the federal government can do. First it’s a grey area legally. The constitution says trade deals (and trade outside the borders of any one state) is the domain of the federal government.
The argument in this case would be “Is this a trade deal?”. It certainly sounds like a deal, and it involves trade, but the key technicality would be if California is giving anything in return. Are they promising anything in exchange for no or reduced tariffs or are they just asking with the promise of nothing in return? If they’re not promising anything there’s a pretty good chance they could win the argument that this isn’t a trade deal and therefore the federal government has no legal basis to intervene (although it’s worth pointing out that the current administration hasn’t particularly let legality influence their actions).
On the other hand if California is promising something in return there’s a decent chance the federal government could successfully argue that that meets the definition of a trade deal and is therefore prohibited. This also raises the question of why another country would agree to remove tariffs from California if they aren’t promising anything in return. The only answer I can come up with is to figuratively (and maybe literally at the same time) give the middle finger to Trump.
On the other hand if…
… the federal government can prove …
California is promising…
Of anyone in government was good at proving backhanded deals without exposing their own, we’d be in a very different place right now.
deleted by creator
It looks like they’re just going to lobby trading partners to please direct (actual) retaliatory sanctions towards products from red states, not their state. In general, I like that idea. But maybe now any excemptions for blue state products should come with a promise to actually fight the incipient fascist government…
Something something taxation… something something representation… help me out here americans
Last civil war was about state rights to own slaves. Now its state right to avoid trade distribution?
My god the writers need to be fired.
And big money in politics. I’d argue Citizens United was the Dread Scott of our time.
Unfortunately, there have been a lot of Dred Scotts of our time.
Dobbs, Trump v Anderson, et cetera.
Fair point Trump v Anderson for sure
Turmoil has engulfed the United States of America. The taxation of trade routes is in dispute.
How 'bout religious awakening against trump?
Isn’t it for trump?
Yes, but remember the Jews are a very crafty folk. They are building their plot of canonization through trump - however their is one other person that could supercede his religious seat.
The right name, at the right time, in the right place makes all the difference.
However normal people are so antichristian without even trying to understand the reasoning behind a christian book. Which I find really frustrating, as they don’t understand it is pivotal to capturing the world’s heart. It has been used as the archetype for the modern worker and their submission. Submission to each other is kindness, and peaceful. However, we are forced to submit to a faceless corporation, for which we must revere, fear, and hold above all else while in position. Essentially making a false god in all but name, however this unbreathing beast controls your lives.
Literally what I was thinking thx
If Trump thinks he’s above the Constitution why can’t a state?
No, there is legal precedence for this
Under NAFTA states could impose their own tariffs because NAFTA was a Federal agreement and countries would have to negotiate free trade with individual states
This is just the reverse of that
As a non-American, the more i learn about US states, the more I realise that the country is more like a reluctant confederation than an actual unified country.
Yeah, it made sense when a horse was the fastest way to travel over land. These days? We’re stuck with a ridiculous government structure designed when no one knew how democracies worked.
Amen to that. It’s very stupid and backwards, but a whole lotta idiots think that the founders were inspired by their god (Jehovah/Yahweh/Allah) and that this kind of thing was handed down on stone tablets.
It tore itself apart in a civil war 72 years after its constitution was written, and the only reason why it didn’t happen again was because it got fat off of being the only power left standing after the world wars.
Also the economic restructuring by both President Roosevelt’s. I suspect the US would’ve collapsed by the 50s without either of them.
Well it won’t be after the next one!
It’s very much like the EU and always has been. Everything makes a lot more sense in that POV.
It is starting to make sense alright. I remember someone telling me that Americans put too much focus on federal politics, even though what goes on in Washington does not necessarily affect them. And the news of American states “Trump-proofing” themselves is also starting to make more sense. This also explains why voter turnout for presidential elections is quite low compared to other democracies, because eligible voters feel they won’t be affected as much.
The US is the Austria-Hungary of our time.
The whole “no legal precedence”. Has been a thing for a few years now. We have what used to be called chaos nowadays.
All hail The New California Republic. But in all seriousness, it wouldn’t surprise me if the United States has a balkanization event happen in the near future.
I don’t get why Oregon and Washington haven’t jumped on that bandwagon. Imagine the entire west coast working together. All Western seaports.
There is a Cascadia Independence movement but it’s not widely talked about.
The two heads representing the east and west coasts, obviously (please let us join you, California, when you go).
deleted by creator
You’re implying the constitution has any weight right now (it doesn’t)
I’d say fuckin do it
It depends on who’s breaking the law/constitution.
At this point it’s hardly the law and the constitution. These are just unpredictable whims of the people in power.
And it’s the same for the European union. European states can’t get trade agreements by themselves. So when you read “Italy is ready to talk with trump” is just sucking dick
Merkel had to explain that to Trump 11 times last time he was president. I bet he forgot it again.
Not really a matter of forgetting. Trump was a leading advocate for Brexit. He wants to see the EU dissolved.
Putin does anyway and thus so does Trump
More than those two, by a long shot. The AfD, the Le Penns, Reform UK, the list goes on.
The best I could tell from the article was that all he was doing was essentially lobbying foriegn countries to tailor their responses so that they hurt california less than other states. I can’t see any law blocking that. From what I could tell he wasn’t even offering anything real in exchange.
Texas couldn’t secede, probably because it’s a red state…how amazing would it be if California became it’s own country with actual progressive laws. I for one would allow it. Let them become Canada, Mexico or even it’s own. Do it Cali!
Let’s do it.
It would be ironic if businesses come back to California because of the tariffs.
Thank goodness now we are talking. Time for California to move past the Orange Turd.
Turd gonna clamp down on California. He’s got to. Otherwise he loses grip.
Other states should join in. It’s going to be rough no matter how you slice it, but I’d rather the states take the fight to him and the feds. Start controlling the narrative and take it away from the idiots.
What’s really to keep states with ports from just taking over Customs, especially with doge firing and closing federal agencies? If the states control their ports they control what gets tagged for tariffs, or am I wrong?
No question.
The tighter his grip the more states that will slip through his tiny fingers.
Hope this falls through. Any trade deals that allow the US to circumvent Trumps policies and thus keep his regime going is bad. The big crash needs to happen before people are motivated to fight back. The slow frog boil is what led us here to begin with.
This IS what fighting back looks like. It takes many forms.
if all the states did this his regime would be the size of the white house.
deleted by creator
As i read this, i am remembered of Newsom meeting Trump, after he refused to help with Californian wildfires.
Why they all leaning forward except Newsom? lol
People misinterpret this image. Newsom isn’t point at Trump, he’s keeping the stack of people from falling over.
Fake news. Some journo hack used photoshop. Here’s the original, with Trup standing true and strong despite them all being on a hillside.
Skills mate, you got them. Nice one.
Cheers, fella! I’m AI1, me!
[1. AI: a two-letter abbreviation which commonly refers to Artificial Intelligence but which can also, although far less often, refer to Abject Imbecile.]
Newsom’s gravity powers are pulling them in. They can’t help it
Smooth criminals?
Why does that look like a photo of a bunch of Nazis?
deleted by creator
Newsweek is pretty close to a tabloid these days. They are a tad better than the NY Post, but not by much.
Anyone speaking of secession - please, read history. We do not want to do that again, I don’t care what you believe in, it is a terrible idea. Please think it through beyond how admittedly awesome it would be in theory alone.
Wouldn’t MAGA supposedly be thrilled for California to leave?
I’m trying to imagine trumper militia marching into California saying, “we need to keep this liberal shithole and it’s 54 blue electoral votes”.
Yeah, it would be devastating for the US economy, but if MAGA has told us anything it’s that they prefer to tank the economy than embrace any kind of diversity.
It’s even worse today. The amount of interconnected systems we have in play would be absolutely chaos to try and separate.
We didn’t have to worry about power grids, networking, food was FAR more local, it would take years to try to isolate yourself from it all on a statewide scale.
Now city-states on the other hand…
Secede and then we can trade :)
Maybe Cali could make an agreement to join Canada or EU.
You’ll need easy access to Canada. What better way than to have a close Canadian Province? - Wa state
Would be fun to watch companies from other states bypass the tariffs by buying California products.
Then of course, Trump will propose tariffs on a State.
It would be hilarious if only red states had tariffs with the rest of the world.
Kudos to California. The neo-Nazi filled MAGA is all about state rights and I hope they tell California to secede.
I hope California succeeds at seceding
