Octopus Overlords

Little Raven wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 11:30 am

Zaxxon wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 11:28 amThat last line is the key. Do I think CA is readying to leave? No; I think it's very unlikely. But it's not a zero chance, and it's absolutely not the case that it'd inevitably lead to war.

Please point me to the Constitutional mechanism by which California can leave the Union. I am honestly at a loss.

Blackhawk wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 12:12 pm

Little Raven wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 11:30 am

Zaxxon wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 11:28 amThat last line is the key. Do I think CA is readying to leave? No; I think it's very unlikely. But it's not a zero chance, and it's absolutely not the case that it'd inevitably lead to war.

Please point me to the Constitutional mechanism by which California can leave the Union. I am honestly at a loss.

"See ya, we're out."

Please point me to the Constitutional mechanism that requires them to stay or prohibits leaving? The Constitution is not a binding contract with the states.

It's been argued endlessly, and the real answer is... It's debatable. It's never been tested. But we're a spread out nation, and I can't imagine the United States choosing to wage a military war against California.

Blackhawk wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 12:12 pmPlease point me to the Constitutional mechanism that requires them to stay or prohibits leaving? The Constitution is not a binding contract with the states.

It's been argued endlessly, and the real answer is... It's debatable. It's never been tested.

But we're a spread out nation, and I can't imagine the United States choosing to wage a military war against California.

Blackhawk wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 12:12 pm

Little Raven wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 11:30 am

Zaxxon wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 11:28 amThat last line is the key. Do I think CA is readying to leave? No; I think it's very unlikely. But it's not a zero chance, and it's absolutely not the case that it'd inevitably lead to war.

Please point me to the Constitutional mechanism by which California can leave the Union. I am honestly at a loss.

"See ya, we're out."

Please point me to the Constitutional mechanism that requires them to stay or prohibits leaving? The Constitution is not a binding contract with the states.

It's been argued endlessly, and the real answer is... It's debatable. It's never been tested. But we're a spread out nation, and I can't imagine the United States choosing to wage a military war against California.

El Guapo wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 12:15 pm Also - one other cynical theory with this leak. How likely is it that the leak was from someone with Roberts / Kavanaugh in a situation where Roberts has successfully convinced Kavanaugh to formally save Roe but with an opinion that upholds the MS law and functionally allows almost any abortion restrictions?

In this scenario the result of the leak would be that when the decision comes down the headlines are "Roberts Saves Roe v. Wade and Preserves the Credibility of SCOTUS" and not "Supreme Court Upholds restrictive MS law and functionally allows abortion to be banned".

Blackhawk wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 12:28 pmIf California were to leave, would the US government actually force them back? How many US soldiers are from CA? How many have family in CA?

Dogstar wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 12:34 pm The theories I've heard so far:
1) The liberals leaked it to stir up public opinion against the decision.
2) The liberals leaked it to stir up public opinion before the midterms.
3) A conservative clerk leaked it to lock in the majority opinion against any last-minute maneuvering from Roberts or Kavanaugh.
4) Roberts leaked it to force Alito to moderate it, with the threat that he either change it or Roberts comes on board, makes it 6-3 and he writes it himself.
5) It was leaked to discredit the Court as a whole.

Little Raven wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 12:01 pm I think you might be confusing me with someone else. Did I actually say Roe wouldn't be overturned?

I mean, god knows I make tons of inaccurate predictions, so I'm not ruling it out, but I don't remember making THAT one.

Dogstar wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 12:34 pm The theories I've heard so far:
1) The liberals leaked it to stir up public opinion against the decision.
2) The liberals leaked it to stir up public opinion before the midterms.
3) A conservative clerk leaked it to lock in the majority opinion against any last-minute maneuvering from Roberts or Kavanaugh.
4) Roberts leaked it to force Alito to moderate it, with the threat that he either change it or Roberts comes on board, makes it 6-3 and he writes it himself.
5) It was leaked to discredit the Court as a whole.

Blackhawk wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 12:28 pm It wasn't actually tested until after the Civil War. At the time of secession, it probably was not illegal. The Federal government does not have any power to handle secession, therefore that power is reserved for the states.

It did go before the Supreme Court after the war, and they declared it illegal. But, that can be challenged, plus the language was specific: unilateral secession is illegal. That means that the government could choose to allow secession.

ImLawBoy wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 12:46 pm

Little Raven wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 12:01 pm I think you might be confusing me with someone else. Did I actually say Roe wouldn't be overturned?

I mean, god knows I make tons of inaccurate predictions, so I'm not ruling it out, but I don't remember making THAT one.

I thought you had been pretty consistent in saying that people were overreacting to the all of the R-appointed justices, including concerns that this might lead to a roll-back of rulings like RvW (plus Obergefell and other similar civil rights rulings). I could be mistaken. If so, I cheerfully withdraw my snark misdirected at you!

(And, FWIW, as I noted I generally agree with you that an actual dissolution of the union is extremely unlikely. I don't rule anything out completely these days, but I just don't see how it would work practically.)

LordMortis wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 1:17 pmGot me curious. It wasn't that long ago, but the position wasn't faith that RvW wouldn't go down, but rather should RvW go down, we'll get past it and perhaps that it's not so bad to make this state's rights thing... That is if my reading is correct.

Little Raven wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 1:46 pm Yeah, that sounds like me. And I stand by it 100%. Of course, it's becoming clear that I just have more faith in the American experiment in general than most people on the forum these days, so my optimism is perhaps unsurprising.

Smoove_B wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 1:57 pmI'd have more faith if things weren't being hijacked by White nationalists, anti-science crusaders and now religious fanatics - many of them now joining forces all at once like some kind of bullshit Voltron.

Little Raven wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 1:46 pm

LordMortis wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 1:17 pmGot me curious. It wasn't that long ago, but the position wasn't faith that RvW wouldn't go down, but rather should RvW go down, we'll get past it and perhaps that it's not so bad to make this state's rights thing... That is if my reading is correct.

Yeah, that sounds like me. And I stand by it 100%. Of course, it's becoming clear that I just have more faith in the American experiment in general than most people on the forum these days, so my optimism is perhaps unsurprising.

Little Raven wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 1:46 pm

LordMortis wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 1:17 pmGot me curious. It wasn't that long ago, but the position wasn't faith that RvW wouldn't go down, but rather should RvW go down, we'll get past it and perhaps that it's not so bad to make this state's rights thing... That is if my reading is correct.

Yeah, that sounds like me. And I stand by it 100%. Of course, it's becoming clear that I just have more faith in the American experiment in general than most people on the forum these days, so my optimism is perhaps unsurprising.

Little Raven wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 12:41 pm
But this is all ridiculous anyway. I mean, for all the hand-wringing going on about the imminent end of the Republic in here, California and New York are not exactly suffering under the cruel lash of the Feds. They are, in fact, THRIVING, and there's no indication that will be changing any time soon, regardless of what happens with Roe. Heck, even the worst off states benefit immensely from being part of the whole. We are all much MUCH stronger together than we ever would be separately.

malchior wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 10:40 am

geezer wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 10:06 amThere's also the reality - happening right now - of states trying to criminalize travel outside of state lines for access, which would effectively create a "national ban" for people who have the misfortune of living in certain geographic locations.

Which will in turn potentially make this a Federal issue and subject to legal review...

gbasden wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 4:40 pm

Little Raven wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 12:41 pm
But this is all ridiculous anyway. I mean, for all the hand-wringing going on about the imminent end of the Republic in here, California and New York are not exactly suffering under the cruel lash of the Feds. They are, in fact, THRIVING, and there's no indication that will be changing any time soon, regardless of what happens with Roe. Heck, even the worst off states benefit immensely from being part of the whole. We are all much MUCH stronger together than we ever would be separately.

We're thriving, sending off 13 billion dollars to support states that then strip us of rights and disenfranchise us. Alabama is much stronger together, but CA is the 6th largest economy in the world. There is a limit to how much abuse blue states will take.

El Guapo wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 4:49 pmI will say that, as much of a political earthquake that this decision will be, it is kind of absurd to be talking about civil war or the dissolution of the Union. Setting aside the economic disruption, the core issue is that people think of themselves as American and there is a lack of any sort of proto-separatist / nationalist identity required for any sort of secession movement. Maybe there's a fragment of that in like California or Texas, but that's about it.

The only thing is that our constitutional structure is pretty broken and there are no easy fixes that can be made to address the problems easily. Given that, and the fact that one of the two major political parties (the one with disproportionate power under our broken system!) is pretty openly hostile to liberal democracy, we're obviously headed for trouble. Could secession become plausible in 20 or 30 years? *Probably* not, but unless we can find some non-obvious way to fix our core systems then something is going to break in a big way sooner or later.

El Guapo wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 4:49 pm The only thing is that our constitutional structure is pretty broken and there are no easy fixes that can be made to address the problems easily. Given that, and the fact that one of the two major political parties (the one with disproportionate power under our broken system!) is pretty openly hostile to liberal democracy, we're obviously headed for trouble. Could secession become plausible in 20 or 30 years? *Probably* not, but unless we can find some non-obvious way to fix our core systems then something is going to break in a big way sooner or later.

Dogstar wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 5:26 pm

El Guapo wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 4:49 pm The only thing is that our constitutional structure is pretty broken and there are no easy fixes that can be made to address the problems easily. Given that, and the fact that one of the two major political parties (the one with disproportionate power under our broken system!) is pretty openly hostile to liberal democracy, we're obviously headed for trouble. Could secession become plausible in 20 or 30 years? *Probably* not, but unless we can find some non-obvious way to fix our core systems then something is going to break in a big way sooner or later.

Maybe I'm wrong -- it would be great if I am -- but I think you're underestimating the current view of punishment for non-compliance within the Republican Party. It's not a stretch to see Republicans trying to pass a national abortion ban if they control Congress and the Presidency. California says they won't comply. In the interim the culture divide has only heightened. The bill is written in such a way that it withholds federal funding (or authorizes some sort of individual bounty thing like Texas) for non-compliance, because the Republicans are definitely getting better at that sort of thing. This in turn antagonizes California...

I know we could all spin out bad scenarios till the universe dies a heat death. However, it doesn't mean they're all unreasonable. Think how much things have changed since 2008 or 2016. Maybe the past six years have been an anomaly, but I think that’s not likely.

malchior wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 4:17 pm This isn't just the forum. The vast majority of Americans are beginning to feel this way. In September last year we had a poll read that showed a little north of 50% thought American democracy was in danger. By January it was north of 60% think Democracy in danger.

Kraken wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 6:32 pm

malchior wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 4:17 pm This isn't just the forum. The vast majority of Americans are beginning to feel this way. In September last year we had a poll read that showed a little north of 50% thought American democracy was in danger. By January it was north of 60% think Democracy in danger.

I'll wager that at least half of those who believe democracy's in danger think that the last election was stolen from trump. They're right for exactly the wrong reason.

Blackhawk wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 8:05 pmWhat I can see happening is that as things like welfare, immigration, and civil rights - such as gay marriage - are attacked, certain states could essentially become 'sanctuary states' for those targeted and disenfranchised groups (more than they already are.) I could see that leading to the social fractures becoming more and more regional as people choose where to live based on culture and opportunity rather than convenience.

Blue-state politicians know that they can largely define how well rights are protected within their borders and, in the case of abortion, have promised to ensure ongoing access. After Politico published an article revealing that the Court may soon fully overturn Roe, California Governor Gavin Newsom pledged to enshrine the right to choose in the California Constitution. “We will do everything in our power to defend abortion rights in Connecticut,” Governor Ned Lamont said. “Let me be loud and clear: New York will always guarantee your right to abortion,” Governor Kathy Hochul stated.

What blue-state politicians are not doing is ensuring that people in other states can find refuge in Democratic states. For decades now, what was once commonplace—Americans moving from state to state—has been made exceedingly difficult, largely because of cost-of-living concerns.

...

There is a clear class dimension to who gets trapped and who gets forced out. The economists Peter Ganong and Daniel Shoag have argued that in the “mid-twentieth century, low- and high-skill workers moved from low-income to high-income places. In recent years, as high-skill workers move to high-income places, low-skill workers leave.” Income gains that come from moving to richer places are offset by rising housing costs, and for many low-skill workers, “rising house prices have eroded the gains from migration.” Nowhere is this story more obvious than in the Golden State, which the Public Policy Institute of California finds has “been losing lower- and middle-income residents to other states for some time while continuing to gain higher-income adults.”

...

The inhospitality of rich, liberal states to the poor and working classes is a problem at the international level as well. During the recent Afghan-refugee crisis, resettlements to coastal areas foundered on the lack of available affordable housing. When the State Department released a list of cities with potential homes for refugees, it left off America’s largest progressive cities: New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. Refugees are actually not welcome here, it seems.

malchior wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 6:36 pm

Kraken wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 6:32 pm

malchior wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 4:17 pm This isn't just the forum. The vast majority of Americans are beginning to feel this way. In September last year we had a poll read that showed a little north of 50% thought American democracy was in danger. By January it was north of 60% think Democracy in danger.

I'll wager that at least half of those who believe democracy's in danger think that the last election was stolen from trump. They're right for exactly the wrong reason.

Maybe but there is some evidence it is less than you might think. At least one poll has it at 29%. Around the magical Trump poll results of 30%. Let's say 65% of people are worried about democracy. That'd be about 19% fraudulent elections and 81% because of the 19%.

Little Raven wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 8:14 pm Unlikely. Trust me, blue states have ways of shutting that down. In fact, we're seeing just the opposite of what you fear.

Little Raven wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 8:14 pm

There is a clear class dimension to who gets trapped and who gets forced out. The economists Peter Ganong and Daniel Shoag have argued that in the “mid-twentieth century, low- and high-skill workers moved from low-income to high-income places. In recent years, as high-skill workers move to high-income places, low-skill workers leave.” Income gains that come from moving to richer places are offset by rising housing costs, and for many low-skill workers, “rising house prices have eroded the gains from migration.” Nowhere is this story more obvious than in the Golden State, which the Public Policy Institute of California finds has “been losing lower- and middle-income residents to other states for some time while continuing to gain higher-income adults.”

According to the Morning Consult-Politico survey released Wednesday. Sixty-six percent of voters said they support setting term limits for justices, with only 21 percent disapproving.