Proposition 8 added "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" to the state constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that violated the federal Constitution. If California left the US, would that resurrect Proposition 8? How about Proposition 187, which didn't modify the state constitution, but set up a system of state laws that a federal court ruled violated the federal Constitution?
Would Calexit be a good thing?
51–60 of 65 posts
Re: Would Calexit be a good thing?
#52Interesting that there is no mention of demographics. Hispanics account for almost 40% of the population, close to 80% of which are Mexican. Following secession and taking history into account, there is reason to speculate that California could become the subject of Mexican annexation, or at the very least, subject to turmoil that could arise from stoking such sentiments among a very sizable chunk of the population, most of which is not associated with tech. Furthermore, secession, if it is to be meaningful, would make a geopolitical impact that would arguably be good for neither California nor the rest of the US (nor the world for that matter; with a weakened US, worse things can fill the vacuum). What I could see is something more in line with right-leaning thought i.e. greater autonomy of the states and greater decentralization of power.
(On a somewhat humorous note: if Putin is spurring Calexit movements, then it sounds to me like a perversion of Pilsudski's Prometheism[0], except that Pilsudski was motivated by a desire to neutralize the threat that Russia posed.)
Re: Would Calexit be a good thing?
#53The very idea is insane. I think we need to do a better job of fighting the divisive forces attempting to destroy this country, led by a domestic terrorist like George Soros. The site itself seems to be run by children[1]. This is where HN news is coming from now? http://waitbutwhy.com/wait-but-who
You can tell there are always a bunch of shill posts on HN.
Re: Would Calexit be a good thing?
#54This is one of the stupidest things ever published on WaitButWhy. The Civil War killed more Americans (~750k) than WWI and WWII combined. Think of it as SouthExit. There are powerful forces binding this union together, and they will not allow a gentle transition to an independent California. So any one who wants Calexit, wants war, and war is really, really stupid. I'm baffled by the irresponsibility of this discussi…
Brexit is a mess. It's the first time that I'm seeing British people leaving their own country and come to Switzerland where they don't know the language at all.
My friends who moved to London from Eastern Europe want to leave, because the worth of their salary dropped by 20% on the global scale, and all they can hear about is Brexit and the negativity around it. Britain is not fun anymore for anybody living there. Also older people who voted for the Brexit are just starting to realize how much they depend on foreigners.
Re: Would Calexit be a good thing?
#55No. People in the current bubble forget that California is usually broke/in legislative crises, which might be about to happen again. Texas is probably the only state capable of thriving if it secedes, CA doesn't even have it's own electric grid. * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9312_California_b... * http://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-s-400...
You act as though power exports from Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Nevada and Utah would somehow cease overnight if California were to become its own country. This is of course false.
That's a wonderfully brave assertion of falsehood! Independence would be a problem for California. The unequal yoke that the Colorado River Compact provides now already has other participating states ticked off at California for how much water and power is diverted to SoCal. That Compact, though, is an agreement among US states and the federal government. To include an independent California would require making a treaty subject to advice-and-consent of the the US Senate. If that wasn't in place and as there's been no likelihood that the Southern Nevada Water Authority would be willing to let the current Compact terms continue to give California the majority of Lake Mead's water, watching SoCal lose a major source of water let alone power is indeed in the cards. Staying in the union means California keeps its preferential terms under the Compact. Leaving means everything has to be renegotiated and since SoCal has been sucking Lake Mead and Lake Powell dry there's little interest by the upstreams in letting that continue.
Re: Would Calexit be a good thing?
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wouldn't continue uninterrupted forever. Those power exports are paid for in currency denominated by the US dollar. California is no longer part of the US, remember? Each of those states would have to negotiate with the new Republic to receive something in equal worth to the power they were delivering. And if they don't get it, they're not going to give away power for free. Their governments won't let them, their…
I don't see why paying for the power would suddenly become an issue. If California can afford it now, they'll be able to afford it later, even if it's paid in a different currency--it's still the same amount of wealth.
There still has to be two parties to a purchase. You can have all the currency with which to pay but if the seller does not want to sell, it doesn't really matter how much you have. The very big problem is that, regionally speaking, California may wind up a willing buyer with no willing sellers and no way to compel anyone to sell to it.
Re: Would Calexit be a good thing?
#57Proposition 8 added "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" to the state constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that violated the federal Constitution. If California left the US, would that resurrect Proposition 8? How about Proposition 187, which didn't modify the state constitution, but set up a system of state laws that a federal court ruled violated the federal Constitution?
Those are legitimate questions that would have to be answered as part of the national government California would set up. Going back over all of the historical differences between US federal and CA state law. I suspect however, that nothing would revert. If those were important issues to CA citizens after secession, I think it's more likely that such propositions would be reintroduced.
Re: Would Calexit be a good thing?
#58This is one of the stupidest things ever published on WaitButWhy. The Civil War killed more Americans (~750k) than WWI and WWII combined. Think of it as SouthExit. There are powerful forces binding this union together, and they will not allow a gentle transition to an independent California. So any one who wants Calexit, wants war, and war is really, really stupid. I'm baffled by the irresponsibility of this discussi…
Brexit is a mess. It's the first time that I'm seeing British people leaving their own country and come to Switzerland where they don't know the language at all. My friends who moved to London from Eastern Europe want to leave, because the worth of their salary dropped by 20% on the global scale, and all they can hear about is Brexit and the negativity around it. Britain is not fun anymore for anybody living there. A…
I'm British and would prefer to remain in the EU. Yet I am quite satisfied to remain here in Edinburgh, both for employment and the quality of life. Believe it or not, there are a great many who share my opinion.
Re: Would Calexit be a good thing?
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would it really be so bad? Cultures/beliefs/values vary tremendously from region to region, and smaller country subsets would be able to iterate faster to support their own value/belief systems.. Texas and related states that join it's new union could be as red as they want, California and those who join w/ can be as blue, and have things like Single-payer healthcare, no public prisons, no anti-immigration laws and o…
Putting everyone into echo chambers is the stupidest idea. You'll get such radical agendas pushed. Balance and variety is good.
Too bad that's what we've done... If you look at America's history, political parties have been divided by a few issues and that's it. For the most part, the political parties until the 1900s followed Washington's wish of not being divided. Sadly, these modern political parties have decided that issues must be divided by party. This has lead to pretty much every issue we face today to be voted against by one party simply because the other party thinks they can't support it because it's somehow a partisan idea.
The media has also made this worse by not documenting things objectively. Citizens think one party is pure evil and the other one is magically full of saints. Unless you ask a libertarian about which party is better, you'll probably get a terribly slanted view. I don't understand this. Both parties have some rotten people, but why is it expected of the American public (it is expected) to vilify one party?
Issues about whether the government should be small and whether agrarian life is best have left to be about whether the government should tax its citizens into submission and whether it should be a police state. The much more rigid divide in beliefs is good for no one. I can't vote for anyone without them contradicting some of my beliefs because I don't follow the awkward divide in political ideals.
Re: Would Calexit be a good thing?
#60He who controls the nukes, controls California's destiny.
If somebody is stealing your car do you shoot out the tires with a rocket launcher to stop him? That's what nuking California would amount to.
Launching nukes would be suicidally stupid for a number of reasons. Firstly, we're upwind of the rest of the US and radioactive fallout would be transported to adjacent states. We didn't realize it when we were performing original tests in Nevada, but now we know there was a significant spike in cancers occurring in the people of St. George Utah, for example, as a result of 1950s nuclear tests in Nevada.
A more immediate and practical concern is that California is responsible for a significant proportion of the United States' food supply.