I live in Texas, where state sovereignty is a big issue. The movement for a “Texit” has been slowly growing here for a lot of years. By and large, it grows when we have a Democrat president and languishes when we have a Republican one. But it keeps going forward, towards what some say is rightful end.

This movement is supposedly founded in the state’s agreement with the United States of America when Texas joined the Union. I have yet to see any proof that such an agreement actually exists or that it was ever committed to paper, but there are those who swear it is true, just like they swear that Texas has the right to divide into five states at any time it so chooses.

Technically, this would be considered “spawning” four new states, as one of the five states would still be called “Texas.”

Texas is unique among the states, in that it was a sovereign nation before joining the Union. This makes it credible that either of those agreements are in place; assuming they are. But even if they are, that doesn’t mean that the federal government would allow Texas to secede.

The federal government receives more income from Texas than it pays Texas in benefits, so they’re not going to be too keen on allowing Texas to secede.

But the focus on succession has changed since Donald Trump took office. Today, it’s not Texas that’s talking so much about succession, it’s California. Apparently the wealthy liberals in Hollywood and Silicon Valley have decided that they don’t want to move to Canada after all, they’d rather keep their California homes and just say goodbye to the United States of America.

So there is an active movement in California, specifically the coastal cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco, to declare their state a sovereign nation, separating itself from the rest of the United States. The “Yes California” movement, is pushing to put a vote for succession on California’s 2018 ballot.

Of course, as is typical with liberals and other political extremists, the people behind California’s succession are ignoring the law. There is no current provision in the constitution for any state to succeed, so any succession would require a constitutional amendment, with two-thirds of the states voting to pass that amendment.

The Right to Secede

There are two notable legal precedents that must be taken into account here. First, there’s the Civil War. There are several reasons why that war was fought, including to end slavery; but also including the federal government asserting its claim that no state or group of states has a right to secede.

The second legal precedent occurred a few short years later, in Texas v. White, a court case presented directly to the Supreme Court. As a supporting issue to the case, the Supreme Court ruled that no state has the right to unilaterally separate itself from the Union.

©shutterstock.com

In making this ruling, they not only declared the Civil War to be an illegal war, but also declared Texit Calexit and any other state “exit” to be illegal under current law. As I already stated, it would require a constitutional amendment to make that legally possible.

This is a major thorn in the side of those who believe in state sovereignty, an issue that goes all the way back to our country’s foundation. In many parts of the South, the Civil War is still referred to as “The War of Northern Aggression,” by those who see it as a federal infringement on state rights.

State Sovereignty?

Throughout the last century, there has been a constant push by the federal government to consolidate power at the national level, stealing power from the states. There are many mechanisms they use to accomplish this, but it all boils down to how one interprets the Constitution.

More than anything, federal legislators are relying on the federal government’s right to regulate interstate business. As time has worn on, more and more interstate business has occurred, giving the federal government more and more avenues to declare that jurisdiction over an area is given to the federal government, by the interstate business clause in the Constitution.

Through this, we are seeing state powers and sovereignty being slowly whittled away by the federal government. While there is actually quite a bit of push back from the states, it is a David versus Goliath type of fight. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ends up deciding many of these cases, and the Supreme Court is a federal institution, not a state one.

But state sovereignty on powers that are reserved for the several states by the Constitution is very different than states acting like they are totally autonomous. Yet in recent years, we’re seeing more and more action being undertaken by state legislatures, attempting to overrule federal law. These various state laws “nullify” federal law, making it of no effect in that state.

California Thumbing its Collective Nose at Federal Law

California isn’t the only state to have taken such action, but they are the most blatant example of it, clearly violating federal law, in pursuit of their own political ideology (which, as we all know, is about as left-leaning as it can get).

The specific example I’m referring to is that of immigration law. As of January first of this year, the entire state of California is a “sanctuary state” for illegal immigrants. This means that state and local law enforcement officers are not allowed to cooperate with Immigration and Customs officials, in the prosecution and deportation of illegal aliens, who California calls “undocumented citizens.”

This state law is in direct contradiction to the US Constitution, which clearly gives power over the issue of immigration to the US Congress. Apparently California’s state legislature, which is strongly Democrat, doesn’t care about federal law or the US Constitution, as they’ve gone ahead and passed this bill, which was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown, another Democrat.

But in reality, this law is merely the last step that California has taken to thumb their noses at the federal government over immigration. California is one of 12 states that issue drivers license to illegal aliens, having issued over 800,000 of them.

Since the driver’s license is the principal form of identification in the United States, one that is typically accepted as proof of eligibility to work, issuing driver’s licenses to these illegal immigrants gives them a legal status that they are not legally eligible to have.

With an estimated 2.5 million illegal aliens in California, these undocumented residents make up 6.67% of California’s population, double the population percentage of the rest of the country. They apparently want more too, as Governor Jerry Brown has promised to protect immigrant rights and even goes so far as to call taxpayers “freeloaders,” while using their tax money to support illegal immigrants.

Oh, and, by the way, to Jerry Brown, those illegal immigrants receiving public assistance aren’t freeloaders. Hypocrisy anyone?

One would think that the federal government could simply say “You can’t do that” to California, and that would be the end of it. But they can’t. This is one case in which state sovereignty gets in the way of doing what is right. So, the federal Department of Justice (DOJ) is being forced to sue the State of California in federal court, in order to uphold federal law.

This could get interesting. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, famous for its liberal panel of judges, is the based in California. Likewise, there are many other liberal-leaning federal judges in the state, including those appointed by Barack Obama, the champion of progressive-liberalism. So the case will probably end up in the Supreme Court.

But in the mean time, California gets away with thumbing their noses at federal law, allowing more and more illegal immigrants in and ignoring requests from federal law-enforcement officers to treat criminals like criminals, just because in California’s eyes, “undocumented immigrants” deserve special treatment.

On Another Level

It’s important to note that this is not the only area where California has gone their own way on laws, although it is different than other instances, in that it negates federal law. Pretty much all of the other cases involve California creating laws which are more restrictive than federal law.

This is allowed by the Constitution. Every state does it in one way or another. Murder and rape, two of the most horrific crimes that one person can commit against another, are not federal crimes in most cases. Rather, they are crimes according to state and local jurisdictions.

While there are cases where these become federal crimes, such as when the criminal crosses state lines, these crimes are usually dealt with on a local level.

But no state is as good as California in making more restrictive laws, especially those that deal with safety, the environment and firearms. California’s environmental regulations and taxes are driving businesses out of the state at an alarming rate, something which will eventually have a heavy toll on the state’s economy.

Cars manufactured for California have to meet special emissions requirements that are not required in any other state. Auto manufacturers literally have had to redesign engine and exhaust systems, just to be able to sell their products in California. Yet, there is enough of a market to make it worthwhile.

©shutterstock.com

California also has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, with the State Legislature falling all over themselves to create greater and greater restrictions on lawful gun ownership. Even so, it is within their right to do so, regardless of what the rest of the country thinks, or even what the residents of the state think.

I think it’s important to note that not all of California’s residents are ardent progressive-liberals. The five northern counties are seeking to secede from the state and form their own state. These counties are predominantly conservative, yet are forced to live under the restrictions imposed upon them by the much larger population in the coastal cities mentioned earlier.

California is the test-bed for progressive-liberal policies. Many of the most left-leaning bills presented in the US Congress are mere adaptations of laws passed in California. So if you want to see where this country is headed, politically speaking, all you have to do is look at California.

Taking it International

California hasn’t just limited itself to operating within its own state. They have recently decided to enter the world’s stage as an international player. I’m not talking about businesses that operate internationally, of which there are plenty, but the state government acting as if it were a sovereign nation.

One of President Trump’s first actions after inauguration was to back out of the Paris Climate Agreement that former-President Obama had signed on the behalf of the United States. He skirted the law in this, by stating that it wasn’t a treaty, so the Senate did not need to ratify it.

But based upon the legal definition of a treaty, it was. It committed the United States to action on the international stage, something that the president doesn’t have the right to do unilaterally.

So, although it has never been ruled upon by the Supreme Court, it is fairly clear that Obama’s actions in signing that agreement and committing our country were illegal. The same can be said for his and former Secretary of State John Kerry’s signing the UN agreement on Arms Control. In both cases, Obama took it upon himself to unilaterally take power that rightly belongs to the Senate.

While the president has the power to negotiate those treaties and sign them, the Constitution states the provision that two-thirds of the Senate must agree. In other words, the Senate must approve of any treaty, before it can be signed. Obama didn’t do that.

Based on that, Trump pulling the United States out of the Paris Climate Agreement was merely righting something that was wrong. If the Senate didn’t like his actions, they could have reversed them, simply by doing what should have been done in the first place. But they didn’t.

So, how did California handle that? They signed their own Climate Agreement with China. This is ridiculous on its face, for a number of reasons. But not only that, it’s probably illegal.

As I just stated, the Senate has to agree to any treaty. There is no provision in the US Constitution or the California Constitution for the state to sign a treaty. Yet the governor did so, anyway. In doing so, they were essentially saying, “We’re not part of the United States, we’re a sovereign country.” But they’re not.

The other reason why this is ridiculous is that of all the countries who signed the Paris Climate Agreement, China is singled out as being given the most leniency in their greenhouse gas emissions. While Obama agreed to drastically cut the US carbon emissions, China was given a pass to continue building inefficient, polluting, coal-fired power plants for the next decade.

In other words, Governor Brown signed an illegal treaty which gave all the advantage to the Chinese. He has put his own state under restrictions that China is not under. Not only is this illegal and ridiculous then, it is foolish. He is hurting his own state’s economy, just to make a political point. What’s that point? That he doesn’t like Donald Trump.

So, it’s clear that California already thinks of themselves as a sovereign nation, or at least California’s politicians think that way. With that in mind, making it legal seems like the logical next step. There’s just one thing… they can’t.

I wonder how long it will take them to realize that.

Written by

Bill White is the author of Conquering the Coming Collapse, and a former Army officer, manufacturing engineer and business manager. More recently, he left the business world to work as a cross-cultural missionary on the Mexico border. Bill has been a survivalist since the 1970s, when the nation was in the latter days of the Cold War. He had determined to head into the Colorado Rockies, should Washington ever decide to push the button. While those days have passed, the knowledge Bill gained during that time hasn’t. He now works to educate others on the risks that exist in our society and how to prepare to meet them. You can send Bill a message at editor [at] survivopedia.com.

Latest comments
  • You used the word “succession” several times in the beginning of your article. Sorry but the correct word is “secession.

    • Well, it would be a success for California to leave the Union. They would become the totalitarian Third World nation those people crave.

      • What would lead California to become 3rd world? They are the 5th largest economy in the world. Not the country, the entire world. If any state could successfully secede, it’s CA.

        • Yes but I think eventually the economy would collapse from the strain of the entitlements

    • Not a bad observation for a pilot. Must have been an EP1.

    • Bucking for a job as an editor there, Phil? Or are you just practicing to be a nitwit spelling OCD troll?

  • Good riddance. It would be great to see California separate itself from the rest of the U.S. and keep the commie liberal agenda amongst themselves. With one caveat, those who move there to bask in their liberal heaven, will not be allowed to leave. I’ll sit back and enjoy watching California turn into Venezuela 2.0. from my free state.

    • More wall to build.

      • Exactly. Since the majority of LA is Chinese owned how long to you think this inept bankrupt welfare state would take to be entirely Chinese owned. That would be a Great Wall indeed.

    • Only if we retain the mineral rights, our military bases, and the rest of the Federal property in the state. Even then, we have millions of US citizens who don’t want to secede, and whose rights it’s our duty to secure. How about just trying Jerry B. and letting him be the first prisoner in a re-opened Alcatraz.

  • You are wrong about the restrictive gun laws. The Constituion is the Supreme law of the land. The Second Amendment states no infringements. Strict gun laws are infringements. The Tenth Amendment grants the states and people the rights and powers to deal with issues not defined by the Constitution. This ignorance is why our country is falling into the abyss.

    • How does the brady law work with the constitution and violates the law?????? Is it legal???

  • One can only hope. However, produce would go up in price.

    • I quit buying California produce years ago! Grow your own produce then price goes down, and the quality goes up, dramatically!!

      • And then you won’t get e.coli or worse because pancho doesn’t use the porta potty, but does it in the lettuce patch instead.

  • Then the wall would need to be built north of the California border.

  • Considering that 65% of L is owned by the Chinese and the entire state is bankrupt and dependent on bailout money from liberal policies, it would take maybe 6 months before the entire state was owned by the Chinese. And no doubt a majority illegal which would present a massive eastern border to defend. This would open the door to a Chinese invasion of the entire country either by stealth or strength. Stupid is as stupid does in the welfare state.

    • Sorry not “L” but “La” as in Lost anglos.

  • Why do we want to force any state to remain in the union if they want to leave? I personally don’t want California liberals telling me how to live. I believe this is the time to address this issue. It shouldn’t have to come to violence to force our will on them.

    • Because we don’t want Balkanization of the country? Because the Constitution doesn’t provide for secession? Because millions of Californians want to remain American citizens? Short of a Constitutional Amendment, secession must be a non-starter, and while California remains in the Union, the Supremacy Clause still applies.

  • As a native-born Californian, I am angry that my voice objecting to the illegal activities of the politicians is not being heard. I am embarrassed to live in a state where honest citizens are being taxed to pay to protect criminals. My rights are being violated and no one else seems to care.

  • The Ninth Amendment says: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people..
    The Tenth Amendment says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.California Constitution, Article III, Section 1 states: The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

    Any infringement upon the right to own and bear arms of any type, is prohibited by the Second Amendment; thus, California is without authority to make gun laws that infringe upon that right. Simple as that.

    In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment’s impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment against state and local governments. In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding” and that its protection is not limited to “only those weapons useful in warfare”. In other words, the restrictions placed by California on various weapons is in direct violation of the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in 2008, 2010, and 2016.
    In the Heller decision, in 2008, the court pointed out:
    “Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”
    The Heller Court also determined that “keep and bear arms” was not limited to use as a member of a militia, but for the purpose of “self-defense” of the person and his home.

  • When Texas rejoined the U.S.. after the War Of Northern Aggression, Texas had to give up their right to secession that was agreed to when joining the union in 1846. Texas was the only state to have that right. AND, Texas does have the right to form up to six states total, it was in the original statehood agreement because of the huge landmass of the state. Much of the Republic Of Texas was forfeited or stolen, eastern Colorado, Grant county, OK, Oklahoma panhandle, & part of Wyoming. Find a copy of the Republic Of Texas & see for yourself. The taking of Grant County almost started a war between Texas & Oklahoma & had to be settled by the US Supreme Court.

    As for California, let them go before they bankrupt the rest of us.

  • People have been talking this nonsense for ages. That is all there is to it – talk. Forget it and enjoy the beaches, mountains, and tourist traps.

    The jobs and pay are great, too. They have also been the salvation of America on more than one occasion, too Read “The Grapes of Wrath” for example. WWII. World entertainment capital. Major breadbasket. Besides, there is a movement in half of the states to leave the union. We don’t like each other very much unless everything is going our way.

  • I say hurray, let California leave the union. Then we should build a wall between California and the United States and require legal passports in order for Californians to cross our sovereign border. Also, that would eliminate all SS benefits to illegals as well as Medicare and other Federal monies. Let them waller in their Sanctuary State of Calfornia. It serves them right for electing all those liberals in the first place. Just my opinion and I assume I am still legally allowed by the Constitution of the USA to have an opinion.

  • I doubt california, with all the federal aid they suck up, and all the droughts, fires, mudslides ,and earthquakes being covered by insurance funded by other states, would survive long without the other states funding these financial drains.

    • i think once they get a rep gov it will change

      • Here’s a thought. Since California has made it so easy for anyone to vote how about 10-15 million of us go on a vacation to California during the voting session and either vote to secede or vote in all republican/conservative minded officials? Might work.

  • Let them leave as long as they take Washington and Oregon with them.

    • Please have kind thoughts for all the folks in Washington outside King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties the other 33 counties have regular folks. Our 3 most populated counties are the only liberal counties, yet they have more votes than all the rest of the counties combined. They ruin and bankrupt their own state then come to Washington, bringing their stupid political policies, drive up housing prices, want illegal immigrants all so they can have access to cheap labor for gardeners, nannies, maid, etc. They want the taxpayers to subsidize their cheap labor force by paying for medical, education, and other social services. They are the best example of rich people who are too cheap to pay fair wages. All the while trying to make Washington just like the state than they left behind. Believe me, we’d send California transplants back if we could just figure out how!!!.

      • Sounds like the situation in North &South Carolina. The people from up North sell their townhouses,Then they move here to take advantage of lower land prices. Unfortunately, they bring with them their liberal, progressive leftist ideas. They then try to impose those failing policies on us.

  • Californiaitis does seem to be spreading to Oregon and Washington. Is it too late for a wall??

  • I believe that, since it is a known fact that California has three million illegals, AND, in that state when they issue a driver’s license you are automatically registered to vote, in ALL future elections, That the election commission refuse to certify the votes from that state. Unless and until they can prove that those illegal voters have been removed from the voter list. By them allowing a large number of illegal votes, they are screwing up the electoral process. If this is allowed to continue, a close election in the future could be determined by a state that has people from other countries, deciding who our next President will be.

  • I’m so disappointed after reading the comments AND the article. No one seems to have done any deeper research than the top of the head. No one has mentioned whom is really behind the Calexit “movement”. China, the drug cartels, MS-13, the UN and Obama holdovers like Holder and Lynch. This isn’t a move to secede. It’s a backhanded play by the globalists to break up the US,, making it more easily controlled. Jerry wants to be King of California, under a UN “protectorate.” If you want the straight scoop, look up a guy named Paul Preston of Agenda 21 radio. He is the leader of the New California movement. The old movement to form statehood by conservatives was called the State of Jefferson.. Unfortunately, Soros got a couple fingers in that pie and the “real” folks had to move over into the New California.

    • President Trump may have thrown a monkey wrench into the illegal alien voter scam going on in California. He wants the “Are You A Citizen?” question added to the next National Census. It is about time someone had the guts and grit to get this done!

  • What is the status of the state split movement to form the state of Jefferson?

  • If this movement fails, I say the rest of us vote them off the island. The best thing that ever happened to America would be to send California off on their own.

    • I really can’t help thinking that those that support any kind of secession movement aren’t taking into account the massive consequences that the departure of any state, even Lalaland out on the west coast, would have. California’s departure would double the length of our southern border. We would lose our most important ports and naval bases on the Pacific. Multiple millions of American citizens who do not want to leave their country would find themselves foreigners, or would be forced to abandon their homes to remain Americans. Federal taxes, monetary policy, property ownership, debt, military status, electoral policy- all would become massive problems needing immediate solutions. The worst effect would be on the stability of the country. If California , Texas or any other state was allowed to secede, the balkanization of the rest of the country would become virtually inevitable. An America that looked like Europe would be weak, vulnerable, and far poorer for many, if not most, citizens..
      In spite of our problems, we need to be thankful for this land of ours. We need to recognize the blessings of liberty and the rule of law that we have been given by our fathers, by all who have sacrificed so much to bring us what we have. And, yes, we need to wake up, recognize the truth of where we are, of how far we have already strayed from the best we can and should be, and to participate in the governance of this land. The power is still in the people, if we will wake up, participate, and, especially, vote intelligently- not out of ideology, or prejudice, or habit.

      • I have to agree with you assessment. To bad that California can’t be ( I want to say forced) compelled to teach the Constitution in the public schools. I went to Jr. High and High School in San Francisco in the early 70’s when they really taught Civics, and American History. My best friend Ray from those days has recently disowned me because I participated in a pro-gun march here in Colorado. He still lives there and has been, I can only say programmed by the MSNBC rhetoric. The globalists WANT a divided nation. Unfortunately half of our political body thinks that would be a great idea. How to we stop the division and recreate unity? .

  • Why wait for The People’s Republic of California to secede? Expel this cesspool now ! It would be best for them and it would be excellent for the rest of us. As for Texas. I live in Temple. If we leave , we will need to take Ft Hood and the air bases around San Antonio with us. An “Independent ” nation requires a adequate defense.

    • Which once again points out why the United States cannot allow states, especially states like California and Texas, to secede. The damage to the nation as a whole, from loss of bases and other national defense assets, is too great to be allowed. As I suggested before, hopefully any effort to secede will be settled in the Supreme Court, and not by violence, but one element of such a case has to be the extent to which these United States are mutually dependent on one another as one nation.

LEAVE A COMMENT