EXPLANATIONS AND REFERENCES: “This spring Calexit will go BLOOM”
(Weblinks not hidden so that you can copy and paste references easily. You are free to share all references.)
WHY THE MIDDLE CLASS WILL REVOLT
First, you must understand how American law works:
In America the law is determined by the rules of Federalism as written in the American constitution. According to the constitution, final legal decisions are made in the Federal Supreme Court. Congress and the President of America work together to make the laws, but the Supreme Court has the final say in what is legal. It is possible for Congress to write a law in order to overturn a ruling made by the Federal Supreme Court. For example, if the Supreme Court says that under current American law, dogs can’t be off a leash, Congress could write a new law (after the Supreme Court gives its interpretation of what is legal) specifically saying that dogs can be off a leash when walking. However, this almost never happens. The process is complicated and lengthy, and rarely do situations occur where Congress finds this worth their time. Consider the amount of amendments to the Federal Constitution that were created into law by Congress after the constitution was finished. All these changes to the law that were done because legally it was not possible to do what they wanted to according to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of what is Constitutional. Look at the case of Citizens United, where the Supreme Court said that corporations can spend money in political campaigns with no limit. It’s been almost a decade since that ruling, and Congress under a liberal and a conservative American President have never changed the law to fix this legal decision made by the Federal Supreme Court.
Recently the president of America appointed a conservative, Neil Gorsuch, to the Federal Court. This has shifted the Federal Supreme Court to be dominated by Conservatives. The days where judges on the court were impartial and only judged what is legal based on a strict reading of the constitution are over. According to multiple reports by the New York Times, the Supreme Court judges actually base their judgement on what political view they endorse. They are now just as politicized as Congress; “three-quarters say the justices’ decisions are sometimes influenced by their personal or political views”.
According to reporting by the New York Times, Gorsuch’s appointment “amplifies the ideological rifts on a polarized court, one political scientists say is the most conservative in recent memory”
This suggests that the Supreme Court will rule with the same opinionated, and often hostile, mannerisms as Donald Trump.
Now, take a look at the court cases coming up in February:
On January 8 2018 ,the Supreme Court will start judging what is legal again. Gorsuch was appointed last year, but was only able to rule on a few cases before the court took a break. Now Gorsuch will have access to an entire years’ worth of legal interpretations. This will give the Court plenty of time to enforce all of the policies that Trump has suggested, and to definitively shoot down all of the lawsuits the government of California has filed against him.
Although the Supreme Court is going to start judging cases again on Jan 8 2018, the real heat of taking away rights of Californian groups will start in February.
How do I know this is going to happen? The Supreme Court has already “loaded the docket”. They has chosen the cases they want to rule on…and in February almost half of the cases that the federal court is going to decide affect institutions and groups that are very present in California.
In February — the Federal Supreme Court will decide:
- Can Unions automatically charge dues
- Can you punish someone for how they protested, even if the protest is over (can you retroactively go back and punish people after the fact for protesting)
- Can you apply harsh punishments to anyone who is an undocumented “illegal” immigrant, because they came to America illegally
- Is it okay to create “speech-free zones” (can the government create places where protests are not legally allowed to express their first amendment right to free speech)
California is the only state where Unions are still strong enough to influence political decisions. Unions have the resources to support the progressive policies and candidates that California wants. Removing the ability to automatically collect dues will destroy the ability to have large amounts of financial reserves for the Unions. This effectively destroys their ability to be a political force in CA.
California has the biggest population of undocumented immigrants in America. Knowing that harsh imprisonment rests for anyone captured by Federal agents will strike fear into a huge portion of California’s people. Nothing but broken family bonds and decreased employment rates will result from this ruling.
California is also the state with the most protests against Trump. Punishing protesters for trying to protect their rights can only be described as oppressive. Knowing that the Federal government can ban protests in certain areas that it claims fit will further limit the effectiveness of protests.
Things will get worse in March and April. The Supreme Court could take any case that might not have reached a decision in a lower court. Because the lower courts have to deal with important issues and lawsuits, the Supreme Court can legally grab any of the cases mentioned and make a decision on them in Spring.
“Certain cases that have not been considered by a lower court may be heard by the Supreme Court in the first instance under what is termed original jurisdiction. The Supreme Court’s authority in this respect is also derived from Article III of the Constitution, which states that the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction “in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party.”
“By petition for certiorari before judgment, which permits the Court to expedite a case pending before a United States court of appeals by accepting the case for review before the appellate court has decided it. However, Supreme Court Rule 11 provides that a case may be taken by the Court before judgment in a lower court “only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court.”
The Supreme Court could make rulings on these questions in Spring:
- Can California have sanctuary cities without the Federal government cutting off funds to California as punishment
- Can California have strict gun laws
- Can women have access to an abortion after 3 weeks of pregnancy
- Can Muslims be restricted from immigrating and traveling to Californi
- Can a border wall be built on the border of CA, even in violation of California law
California has said that it will protect undocumented immigrants, and will not cooperate with immigration agents of the Federal government. This is called the “sanctuary cities” policy. The Federal government said that it would cut funding to California in response for not following Federal law. A lower court said that it is legal for California to have sanctuary cities, and the Federal gov cannot cut funding. However, recently 11 American states filed an appeal saying that the Federal gov should be able to cut funding to anyone who does not follow Federal immigration law.
The Federal Supreme court could decide that it is legal for the Federal government to punish California and cut federal funds until it agrees to give up on protecting undocumented immigrants.
California has the largest population of undocumented citizens. If the CA government loses massive amounts of money protecting them, it would force them to raise taxes. This would greatly decrease the public’s willingness to provide sanctuary.
Californians love gun regulations, and losing them would strike fear into all of California. There was a case involving the question of whether California could have strict gun control regulations that was going to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. It was previously declined to be reviewed, which is why California’s strict gun control laws are still legal. “The higher-profile of the cases, Peruta v. California, involved a challenge to a California law that bans the open carrying of firearms and requires concealed carry applicants to first demonstrate good cause. Petitioners had argued that law enforcement officials in San Diego and Yolo counties had defined good cause so narrowly …”
“Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, both conservatives, disagreed with their colleagues’ decision to not take up the case.”
However, if another conservative judge is added to this Federal court, the Supreme Court could take the new vote and choose to accept this case.
Also consider that California has created even more new gun control laws that test the boundaries of gun regulation. These laws have not yet been enforced, but will be in Jan 2018. At that time, anyone could contest the laws and ask for an appeal. That appeal, because it is a new case, could be taken up by the Fed court. Gorsuch was not happy that he didn’t get to rule against CA gun laws, and would be eager to accept another case like it. “But due to pending court challenges, shifting deadlines and contradictions in the laws, many gun owners say they’re unsure about new rules”
Because gun rampages are such a big issue right now, the Federal Supreme Court could say that there is an “imperative public importance” to reaching a decision quickly about the legality of gun regulations.
In addition to gun safety laws being destroyed by the Federal government, there is a bill that may become law that says if any state permits a person to own a gun and carry it around on them at all times, hidden from public view, California has to accept that and allow gun owners from any part of America to be able to conceal and carry a gun anywhere in California. This includes schools, parks, and movie theaters. California gun regulations will not be able to affect people outside of California who wish to travel into CA and bring a loaded weapon.
“Long a top priority of the National Rifle Association and gun rights advocates across the country, concealed-carry reciprocity treats permits to carry a concealed firearm in public places like a driver’s license — a permit obtained in one state would have to be honored by another, no matter how easy it is to obtain a permit in a state like Nevada compared to how hard it is in California.”
“And crucially, the bill now on its way to the U.S. Senate would enable Californians to apply for permits from other states such as Florida and Utah with looser requirements — states that don’t require applicants to be residents of that state, and allow the entire application process to happen online.”
Under current California law, it is incredibly difficult to obtain a license to carry a hidden gun in a public place.”
“It’s a very different story in other parts of the country. Twelve states — including neighboring Arizona — allow concealed carry without requiring gun owners to obtain any special permit.”
If this bill is approved by the Federal Congress, the Federal Supreme Court could decide that the conflicts between state laws entitle it to jump in and grab the case.
In February a Federal lower court will rule to the question of whether or not California’s laws can be ignored and a Border wall can be constructed between California and Mexico. Once the lower court takes the case, the Federal Supreme Court could easily step in.
If the Federal Supreme Court views the border wall as a national security issue, as many Americans do, it could also claim imperative public importance on allowing the border wall legality challenges to be dealt with so the wall can be built as quickly as possible.
California’s challenges to the travel ban also mean the Supreme Court could pick up the case and make the ban permanent.
“It signals that some of the justices might be distinguishing the latest version from previous iterations and could be more likely, in the future, to rule in favor of the ban.”
If the Federal Supreme Court views immigration of Muslims as a national security issue, it could also claim imperative public importance to make it legal to ban Muslims coming into America.
California women have long considered it their right to have access to an abortion now that could be taken away from them — having to choose to have an abortion within 3 weeks will effectively remove the option. Not everyone knows they are pregnant right away, or before the beginning of their next menstruation. Too bad the Supreme Court could rule.
Currently there is a law being proposed in the Federal Congress to make it illegal to have an abortion after a heartbeat can be detected. However, heart beats appear in fetuses at 3 weeks.
“King acknowledged that such a bill, if signed into law, would face legal challenges, possibly going all the way to the Supreme Court.”
“Opponents also note that the bill doesn’t provide exceptions for victims of rape or incest.”
The Supreme court could decide to grab the case and rule that it is legal to limit access on abortion procedures.
Currently in the lower courts, there is a case concerning abortion rights. The Federal Supreme Court could again argue this case is too important to wait for a lower court ruling and grab the case.
Also, another Federal lower court just appointed a judge who does not believe women have the right to an abortion. She could choose a case for this lower court to decide on, that deals with abortion…setting up an easy path for the Federal supreme court to take that case from the lower court and rule on it.
It should be noted that this is not an idle worry. The lower court that the Abortion opponent has been appointed to is in Indiana, the home of American Vice President Michael Pence, who is publicly known to oppose abortion.
Don’t forget that a majority of the Supreme Court is conservative, and the person who tipped the balance was Gorsuch, someone known to be opposed to women’s right to choose.
WHY WILL THE UPPER CLASS REVOLT
The richest ¼ of CA invests in homes, and they will lose around 20–60,000 dollars each due to changes in federal tax laws.
-California property taxes over $10,000 will no longer be deductible from the Federal income tax.
-1/4 of Californians will be paying thousands of more dollars in taxes to the Fed government.
-California will pay more federal income taxes than ever before in its history
-The amount of subsidy California provides America will be dramatically increased.
- This also means that the federal government will have more control over California!
- “H.R.1 — An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018.”
- “California has the nation’s highest state income tax. That burden has been softened until now because we’ve been allowed to deduct state taxes on our federal tax returns. But not so much starting next year.”
- “State income and local property tax deductions will be capped at $10,000 total. That’s only roughly half of what average tax itemizers have been deducting. So the state income tax is going to hit many Californians much harder.”
- “California has been a donor state since 1987, …the state still gets less back than it sends to Washington.”
- “Killing the state and local tax deduction, as President Trump and congressional Republican leaders have (JUST MADE A LAW), probably would tilt the equation even more against California.”
- “We will end up being an even greater donor state,” said Rep. Judy Chu (D-Monterey Park). “That’s not fair.”
- “In California, about 26% of tax filers would see an increase averaging about $3,200.”
- “First of all, the SALT deduction — like all federal tax increases — will drive ever more tax revenues to the federal government, putting more power, both in relative terms and absolute terms, in the hands of the federal government. This is one reason federal tax increases are even worse than state and local tax increases. They skew political power in the US ever more toward the federal government.”
- “By increasing the federal government’s share of all tax revenues collected, the federal government will also then be in a better position to manipulate state governments and state policymakers with federal grants.”
- “An additional problem is that the elimination of the deduction is specifically aimed at increasing federal power at the expense of state and local power.”
CALIFORNIA HAS ALREADY FAILED TO KEEP ITS’ PROMISES ON PROTECTING ITS’ PEOPLE
“Here are some of the resistance bills that stalled in the Legislature:
• Border wall: Senate Bill 30, by Lara, would have prevented the state from doing business with contractors involved in the construction of the president’s proposed border wall between the U.S. and Mexico — specifically on the California border.
• Internet privacy: After Congress struck down federal regulations that aimed to protect internet users from having their online activities secretly tracked and sold, Assemblyman Ed Chau unveiled Assembly Bill 375, which would require broadband providers to follow such rules in California.
• Offshore drilling: Senate Bill 188, by Sens. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara; Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens; and Senate Leader Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, would have prohibited the California State Lands Commission from allowing new or additional exploration, development or production of oil or natural gas offshore “that would result in the increase of oil or natural gas production from federal waters.”
• Clean Air Act: Amid the threat of environmental rollbacks came Senate Bill 49, from Sens. Kevin de León and Henry Stern, which sought to make the existing protections under the federal Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act enforceable under state law.”
“California lawmakers pushed through a passel of legislation to thwart initiatives from the Trump administration — but also discovered that even their popular resistance has limits.”
• “A bill to protect California from the threat of rolled-back federal regulations on clean air and water didn’t even get a vote in the Assembly.”
• “And the sweeping single-payer health care proposal to replace private health insurance in California with a single, government-run plan — introduced while Trump and Congress were trying to dismantle the Obama-era Affordable Care Act — stalled in the Assembly this summer.”
• “Some of the bills that failed, he said, were symbolic proposals that carried economic repercussions. One such example, he said, was a bill to block the state from doing business with any contractors who helped build a border wall between California and Mexico, a bill he called “fraught with impracticality.”
• “Another bill that failed to gain traction responded to a Trump executive order opening the door for new offshore oil development. Senate Bill 188 would have prohibited the State Lands Commission from approving new leases for pipelines or other infrastructure to support new federal oil and gas development off of the California coast.”
• “Consumer groups bemoaned the death of a bill to protect internet users from relaxed federal regulations on internet privacy.”
“Police officers can barge into a house without a warrant or without announcing themselves and shoot someone if they fear for their life when they pull the trigger.”
“That’s what the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday, when all eight justices agreed to strike down the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals “provocation doctrine” — the only court rule in the country that sought to hold cops accountable for their actions leading up to excessive use of force.”
“California officials on Wednesday withdrew their request to sell unsubsidized insurance policies to people who can’t prove they’re legally in the United States after learning the decision would fall to President-elect Donald Trump’s administration.”
“Calling the decision “the first California casualty of the Trump presidency,”
Californians are dependent on the Federal Health Insurance, but a major part that allows this system to work well was removed by the Tax plan just passed. California said that it would keep the Health Care system and fight against any attempt to dismantle this. The tax plan affect on the health care plan showed this promise to be untrue.
“According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the repeal of the individual mandate penalties could result in as many as 13 million fewer Americans having health insurance. About 5 million are projected to be people who previously bought health insurance as individuals either within or outside the ACA’s marketplaces. Some will choose not to buy insurance because the penalty has disappeared. Others, especially higher-income individuals who don’t qualify for subsidies under the ACA, will drop insurance because of increases in average premiums predicted by the CBO. These premium increases will occur because, with the repeal of the mandate, many young, healthy people will exit markets, leaving a sicker, more costly insurance pool behind.”
“The Senate plan also gets rid of the healthcare individual mandate, which requires all Americans to buy health coverage. Without that mandate, a larger portion of healthier Americans are expected to forgo health insurance, which will hurt insurance pools and could force Obamacare to unravel.”
“Premiums will certainly increase without an individual mandate,” said Erin Grinshteyn, an assistant professor of health policy at the University of San Francisco.”
This will weaken the strength of the insurance market for health care in California, leading it to be unable to provide health insurance to everyone in need.
“the tax bill would lead to 1.8 million more people lacking health insurance in California than currently”
“Water under the Mojave desert: Environmentalists backed AB 1000 as an attempt to block a controversial project that would pump groundwater out of the Mojave desert and direct it to more populous communities near the coast. The bill also had the unusual support of Gov. Jerry Brown and U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein. But labor and business groups opposed it, and the project developer, a company called Cadiz, is a big political donor. After killing the bill, Senate appropriations chairman Ricardo Lara released a statement saying the project had gone through extensive environmental review and the Legislature shouldn’t interfere.”
“Blocking coastal oil drilling: After President Donald Trump signed an executive order that could expand oil and gas drilling into federal waters off the California coast, Democratic Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson of Santa Barbara introduced a bill intended to block it. Her SB 188 would have prohibited the state from approving new leases on pipelines or other infrastructure needed to support new oil and gas development. The bill would have cost the state millions of dollars in lost leases. Its demise in the Assembly appropriations committee marked a loss for environmentalists and a win for oil companies — and the Trump Administration.”
“Center for Constitutional Rights Executive Director Vince Warren finds the Court’s decision to uphold the “show me your papers” provision of Arizona’s immigration law, which allows police to demand proof of immigration status of anyone they stop or detain, disappointing. “In upholding Section 2(B) of SB 1070, the Supreme Court has legitimized reactionary state law ordinances that encourage widespread racial profiling, multiply wrongful arrests, and spread fear in communities of color. Today’s decision allows individual states to create a patchwork system of immigration enforcement and in effect undoes decades of precedent holding that regulation of immigration is an exclusively federal function. The Supreme Court has sent the disheartening message that it is willing to turn back the clock to a ‘states’ rights’ era in which the federal courts have no role in protecting the civil rights of people of color,” stated Warren.”
And that’s not all, on top of the outright failures, many of California’s successful legal battles are watered down from what they were proposed.
California said that it would become a “sanctuary” for the undocumented ,and would refuse to cooperate with Federal officials on immigration. And yet the new rules allow limited cooperation with Federal immigration agents. It does not stop cooperation…which is what was promised. Despite public celebration by the CA government they never really talked about how they gave half of what they promised.
“The Capitol’s ruling Democrats introduced more than 35 bills to mount policy blockades against Trump. Four have since become law or part of the state budget, and eight more await the governor’s signature. Some have been scaled back from their original sweeping premise, and many early bills flamed out entirely.”
“The new legislation will allow U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents access state law enforcement databases — something de Leon sought to prohibit in his original proposal.”
“The current iteration of the bill is significantly watered down from the original version, as the L.A. Times points out, following weeks of negotiation between de León and Governor Brown. For example, the current bill still allows federal immigration officials to work with state correctional facilities as well as allowing ICE officials to enter jails to question immigrants. It also allows state police and sheriff’s officials to share information with ICE, and possibly transfer people to ICE custody, if a person is found convicted of one or more crimes from the California Trust Act.”
“The Senate approved a tougher version of the measure before it was watered down in the Assembly in response to concerns from law enforcement and Gov. Jerry Brown.”
“The changes also clarified the language of the bill to allow state and local law enforcement agencies to participate in task forces, even when immigration enforcement becomes an element of the investigation.”
“ The legislation would also permit police and sheriffs to share information and transfer people to immigration authorities”
“immigration activists rallied outside the office of de León, D-Los Angeles, demanding that he not “water down the bill.”
California politicians also said they were going to shut down the racist law that Muslims would be banned from traveling anywhere in America. The Supreme Court already said a partial version of the ban is legal. CA leaders were saying the entire thing is racist, and now settle for limited racism.
“It cannot be in the public interest that a portion of this country be made to live in fear,”
“They added that the court has made an “implicit conclusion” that the administration will prevail.”
“The US Supreme Court on Monday allowed the newest version of President Donald Trump’s travel ban to take effect pending appeal.”
“This is the first time justices have allowed any edition of the ban to go forward in its entirety. It signals that some of the justices might be distinguishing the latest version from previous iterations and could be more likely, in the future, to rule in favor of the ban.”
3 YEAR TIMELINE OF CALIFORNIA MOVING TO INDEPENDENCE:
Act 1 IT STARTED WITH A WAR OF WORDS
Mar 16 2016 CA Governor Brown says “If Trump were ever elected, we’d have to build a wall around California to defend ourselves from the rest of this country,”
Nov 6 2016 — CA Assembly member says “In the disastrous case that @realDonaldTrump is elected, I will explore intro of a bill to have CA secede from the union.”
Nov 8 2016 — Donald Trump wins support from a majority of Americans outside of California
Nov 9 2016 CA Governor Brown repeats “If Trump were ever elected, we’d have to build a wall around California to defend ourselves from the rest of this country,”
Nov 9 2016 — Leader of California senate “woke up feeling like strangers in a foreign land, because yesterday Americans expressed their views on a pluralistic and democratic society that are clearly inconsistent with the values of the people of California.”
Dec 5 2016 — Sanctuary city proposed for CA
Dec 16 2016 — CA Governor publicly declares he does not care about the Federal government acts. CA will do what it wants its own way , in the most defiant speech to Federal law ever by CA
And in an impassioned State of the State address on Jan. 24, Gov. Jerry Brown pledged war against the Trump administration’s policies, citing the state’s leadership on key issues like climate change
Feb 6 2017 — American president Trump says “California is out of control”
NO American President has ever singled out a part of America as being beyond Federal control since the American Civil War.
Feb 9 — CA thinktank shows “Sixty-five percent of California adults say the state and local governments should pursue their own policies to protect the rights of undocumented immigrants, while 63 percent of adults support state action to address global warming, according to the poll.”
Poll: California rallies around Jerry Brown, eager to battle Trump
SACRAMENTO - Less than three weeks into Donald Trump's presidency, Gov. Jerry Brown has never been more popular, and…
Act 2 THEN REAL POLICY PROPOSALS CAME
April 10 2017 — Federal government announces border wall will start first part of construction in CA
April 21 — CA threatens to have funds cut
April 26 21 Trump multiple CA protected reserves
May 17 2017 — Ca gov impeach
May 30 2017 — Federal supreme court in one of first cases with Trump appointed Gorsuch takes on case in CA, and says police can gun down
june 12 — CA supreme court shuts down Trump travel ban
June 22 — CA adds more American states on ban that was passed on September 2016
July 13 — California representative provides
Aug 2 — CA Senate representative says Calexit could happen.
“I don’t know where it ends up, but I can certainly understand the some of the sentiment behind it.”
Sept 16 21017 — Government Sanctuary cities
Sept 25 Governor Brown: #Calexit “not beyond the realm of possibility”
Sept 27 2017 — Trump will showcase prototypes of wall in California
Sept 27 2017 — Trump proposes change to American tax regulations — which will hurt CA more than any other
Oct 6–10 News says let CA go for first time
Oct 19 California wildfires are so bad and trump does little -appears he is attacking California
Oct 19 — CA no cooperate data with Federal government on other registry
Jan 2018 ?
Feb 2018 ?
March 2018 ?