You wrote about Calexit. I am the president of the movement.
Would you consider printing my response so there is a balanced discussion, sincerely.
“Just about every day of the week, even a cursory examination of current events in America makes the notion of California seceding from the union less preposterous.”
Completely agree with this sentiment from the Lompoc Record. However, as President of the Calexit movement, I have to disagree with the facts presented as to why we can’t actually leave America.
1. “the U.S. Constitution denies states the right to secede.”
Not true: The constitution is silent on secession. What it does say is that for all legal disputes, the Supreme Court is to decide what is legal. The Court said in a case, after the civil war, Texas V White, that states could secede “with consent of the states”.
2. “doubtful a secession movement would win approval of a majority of California voters”
Not true: Stanford University’s Hoover Institute, Jan 5–9, and Reuters/Ipsos Jan 23 both ran polls on Calexit in January 2017, and they showed 32% support + 15.5% “don’t know, and 27% support and 19% “not sure” which means the amount of Californians willing to seriously think about Calexit is 46–47.5% or “just under half” and GQ magazine reported on this fact in April 27 2017. It is a not true to say that 2/3rds of Californians were against Calexit — that is not what the polls showed at all, the truth is that just “barely” under half of California is interested.
3. “We don’t score very well in personal finance website WalletHub’s latest evaluation of the best places to live.” That survey said the best place to live was Massachusetts, Minnesota and New Hampshire, where it snows all of the time and there is no diversity. Ask around, Californians do not think of these places as “the good life”. Secondly that survey ranked CA as doing better than half of America already.
4. “About a third of everyone in California lives at or below the federal poverty level. Nearly a third of state residents do not have health insurance. About one-quarter of the population is considered in fair-to-poor health.”
True: but why is it true. California is a donor state, and pays more in to subsidize 25 states than it gets out in Federal services. CA lost 13.7 billion in 2019. The cost to house all of the homeless in the Bay area is estimated at 12.7 billion, meaning that we could permanently fix homelessness in the Bay area — in one year if we were independent. The Very next year we would have an additional 13.7 billion to fix LA homelessness, in 5 years we could afford every homeless person a new home.
5. “it would seem far wiser for California, its residents and policy makers to focus on fixing what’s wrong at home”
We already do that. We already are known as the state that approves more laws and tries more experimental policies that anyone else. Staying a state doesn’t encourage a behavior we already display in spades.
6. “try the South-will-rise-again ploy that failed so miserably a century and a half ago in the Civil War.”
Irrelevant: Again Texas V white, is a Supreme Court case that came after the Civil war and provides a legal understanding of how to leave that was not available to the South when they tried.
7. “ do terminal harm to the nation’s political balance, perhaps giving the more conservative factions a strangle-hold on top elected offices.”
Not True: California has not affected a presidential election since 1870, and that includes Obama and Trump. Californians know that America picks the president always — before their votes are counted. Also, we don’t have control of the senate, and because of these two facts, that means we don’t control the Supreme Court, which is now radical. So California doesn’t have any effect on 3 of the 4 major branches of government, which means we can’t actually get laws passed. Hence why McConnel said to think of himself as the “Angle of Death” — because it doesn’t matter if liberals own the House, you can’t make anything happen without the other branches approving.
8. “We can’t see how California pulling out of the union would help anyone”
Calexit would help:
It could house all of the homeless
It could increase funding for all poor school children who suffer from underfunded schools
It could repair the roads what we just taxed ourselves more for and we still don’t have enough money to fix
Finally, we have to realize that as long as CA is part of America, it is under Federal law. Currently the Supreme Court directly disagreed with the CA governments lawsuit’s and said:
-No CA you don’t get to stop the sale of public lands in CA
-No CA you can’t ensure women and minorities have the tools they need to sue an employer for discrimination
-No CA you can’t stop the Fed gov from rewriting tax codes so that people in your state are hurt more
-No CA you can’t punish companies that want to build the racist border wall
-No CA you can’t stop the Fed gov from building a racist border wall
-No CA you can’t stop the Fed gov from permitting off shore drilling
-No CA you can’t stop the Fed gov from loosening air and water protection laws
-No CA you can’t stop the Fed gov from banning people immigrating from Muslim countries
-No CA you can’t stop the Fed gov from holding immigrants at the border “indefinitely”
-Yes you can discriminate against LGBTQ customers
-Yes the police can shoot civilians and be free from investigation
9. “California and its citizens have a lot to say about the future of this great nation. And this state has always been a leader when it comes to innovative policy directions.”
Not true: California was not able to stop any of these Supreme Court rulings and has to live by them. What happens when the Federal Court says Abortion is illegal, and LGBTQ people don’t get safe places, and Illegal Immigrants can be prosecuted for federal crime just being here and held for 10 years — the answer is absolutely nothing, as long as you ARE JUST A STATE.
• Stanford Jan 2017–27%
• Not sure — 19%
• Californians not opposed to discussing Calexit 46%
• Reuters Jan 2017–32%
• Don’t know — 15.5%
• Californians not opposed to a discussion on secession
“A federal appeals court ruled that the Trump administration did not exceed its powers by waiving environmental rules to speed up construction of prototypes and replacement of the U.S.-Mexico border wall.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday rejected arguments by the state of California”
Federal governments top court backs Trump on Border Wall.
“U.S. top court snubs environmental challenge to Trump’s border wall”
Federal governments top court back Trumps on selling off California land
“Judge rules in favor of Trump administration in California federal lands case”
“The Supreme Court ruled Monday in favor of a Christian baker in Colorado who refused to make a custom cake for a same-sex couple”
“the Supreme Court basically barred workers nationwide from launching class-action lawsuits against employers…The class action, on the other hand, is one of the key legal mechanisms workers have to raise their collective voice on issues of wage theft, discrimination, sexual abuse”
“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.”
“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,”
The Supreme Court on Tuesday endorsed the U.S. government’s authority to detain immigrants awaiting deportation anytime — potentially even years — after they have completed prison terms for criminal convictions, handing President Donald Trump a victory as he pursues hardline immigration policies. The 9th Circuit had ruled that convicted immigrants who are not immediately detained by immigration authorities after finishing their sentences but then later picked up by immigration authorities could seek bond hearings to argue for their release. Other regional federal appeals courts that have addressed the issue did not rule the same way as the 9th Circuit and were more in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling. That means immigrants in those regions who were subject to mandatory detention already were not entitled to bond hearings.
From: Marcus Ruiz Evans <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 11:32 AM
Subject: Re: About Reuters/Ipsos poll: 32% of CA — could I see “don’t know” %
To: Erin Morris <Erin.Morris@ipsos.com>
Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Thank you for the quick response
It’s fascinating to know that the well-publicized poll in the news that 32% of Californians support Independence ALSO shows that 47.5% are at least not directly opposed to Independence..they “don’t know” if they are against it.
On Mar 2, 2017 6:46 AM, “Erin Morris” <Erin.Morris@ipsos.com> wrote:
Marcus, Chris Jackson forwarded me your question about the ‘don’t know’ percent from our California data. I’ve copied that below. Let me know if you need anything else!
Don’t know — 15.5%
Ipsos Public Affairs
2020 K St., NW Suite 410, Washington DC 20006
Direct: 202.420.2026 | Mobile: 202.394.0923
email@example.com | http://www.ipsos-pa.com |
Ipsos Public Affairs — The Social Research and Corporate Reputation Specialists
From: “Marcus Ruiz Evans” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Mar 1, 2017 3:03 PM
Subject: About Reuters/Ipsos poll: 32% of CA — could I see “don’t know” %
Read about this poll showing 32% of Californians want independence from America
When I looked at the source for the poll, it said that the question “don’t know” was also asked.
What percent of Californians said “don’t know” if they are against secession?
Marcus Ruiz Evans
More Californians dreaming of a country without Trump: poll
Reuters/Ipsos Data: Secession