California secessionists...

[Mountain Man]

There is no [precedent] for a peaceful secession in history unless both parties agree...

Like I said, if California really wanted to leave the Union, I could picture the other 49 states happily saying, "Don't let the door hit you on the way out."

[JimL]

Like I said, if California really wanted to leave the Union, I could picture the other 49 states happily saying, "Don't let the door hit you on the way out."

Yes, but when picturing that, you should take into consideration the brain in which that picture emerges.

[rogue06]

precedent

At least he spellicated "secession" korrectly.

[Mountain Man]

Yes, but when picturing that, you should take into consideration the brain in which that picture emerges.

Look, Jimmy, as dumb as you think I am, the fact is that you're even dumber.

[shunyadragon]

precedent

OK sorry for the spelling error.

Considering secession is not the act of secession. All through history secession is considered, but it remains . . .

There was no [legal] path to secession before or after the civil war. There is no precedent for a peaceful secession in history unless both parties agree, or in some cases a written process in the Articles of Confederation like in Canada.

[Sparko]

Well, Texas v. White, is I believe the only Supreme Court case to actually touch on the subject of secession. To set the stage quickly, essentially the question was this: During the Civil War, United States bonds that Texas had were sold to some citizens to get money. After the Civil War, Texas's government decided it wanted the bonds back, and claimed that the selling of the bonds was illegal.

This went to the Supreme Court, which ruled 5-3 that because Texas had never legally left the country or ceased being a state, any actions taken by the confederate government (outside of routine matters) were illegal, and thus the selling of the bonds was invalid and Texas got to keep them. One can read the rationale for themselves here. This critical phrase was stated in the decision:
"The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."

So two possibilities were given for a legal secession: "Revolution or consent of the States." Obviously, as the Civil War itself was a revolution, the former refers to successful revolution, as much as was the case in the Revolutionary War, your secession becomes ex post facto legal if you win any ensuing war. The latter is a bit more ambiguous (what qualifies as "consent of the States"?) but still indicates that if you can get enough of the rest of the country to go along with it, it's legal.

Mind you, this decision is from 1869 so who knows how binding it would be considered today. But it is the only time the Supreme Court officially touched on the subject, and that was their apparent opinion of what would make any secession legal.

so you just said the same thing I did but with more words.

[Sparko]

Its no wonder conservatives inside and outside of California like the idea of seccession, its been a Russian operation from the get go. Sorta like how the authoritarian Trump got elected. Old Vladimer P. just loves you people!

California is a Russian operation?

[Cow Poke]

California is a Russian operation?

Ain't he a pantload?

[Sparko]

The Civil War was the south saying "We're Going" and the northing saying "No." I'll bet if California said "We're leaving" and the other 49 states said "Good bye", everyone would find a legal way to get it to happen.

They can always revolt and the rest of the US can capitulate and say "We give up! You win! You can be an independent country!"

[Cow Poke]

I beat you.

I'm filing a police report. (but I can't find the bruises)

[Sparko]

Absolutely!

I just think the fact that the liberals here who can't spell secession know just about as much about the process as they do the spelling.

well at least he didn't spell it succession.

[Cow Poke]

OK sorry for the spelling error.

Considering secession is not the act of secession. All through history secession is considered, but it remains . . .

There was no [legal] path to secession before or after the civil war. There is no precedent for a peaceful secession in history unless both parties agree, or in some cases a written process in the Articles of Confederation like in Canada.

I think it's more proper to say there's no obvious or apparent 'path to secession'. It's obvious that no provision was made for it by the Founding Fathers.

[Cow Poke]

well at least he didn't spell it succession.

California will never succeed as long as it's led by liberals.

[shunyadragon]

I think it's more proper to say there's no obvious or apparent 'path to secession'. It's obvious that no provision was made for it by the Founding Fathers.

Obvious? It is obvious that there was no 'path to secession' in the Constitution and the intent of the forefathers for the possibility of secession in establishing the USA as a Republic.

I go with international history of attempts or considerations of secession, and the history of the USA before the Civil War. Unlike how the Articles of Confederation of Canada were written with the intent of a Federation to allow for secession by consent, the Constitution and the writings of the forefathers indicate no possibility for secession.

As in the history of the USA, as in the 'Pennsylvania Whisky Rebellion,' and other nations in history that a unilateral declaration of secession is considered a declaration of war.

[Cow Poke]

Obvious? It is obvious that there was no 'path to secession' in the Constitution and the intent of the forefathers for the possibility of secession in establishing the USA as a Republic.

Prove me wrong. Show the "obvious path" that was enumerated.