?

Log in

The California Secessionist Party [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
The California Secessionist Party

[ website | Free California ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Links
[Links:| Yahoo Group for California Secession ]

Legislative reform [Jan. 12th, 2005|04:30 pm]
The California Secessionist Party

tkwrinklefiber
rayne_vandunem and I were recently discussing the future of the legislative and executive branches of the new California (/Oregon/Washington) nation. While we didn’t come to an agreement on the executive, I think we came up with a fairly good plan for the configuration of the legislature, and the decision-making process on bills, as well as the structure of the constituent units of the nation.

Essentially, there would be a unicameral Congress, which would debate and vote on bills. Once Congress approves a bill, it would be sent to the counties (there would probably be rules for determining which kinds of bills get sent to the counties, so that the counties’ agendas aren’t clogged with useless and procedural minutiae). Each county council (Board of Supervisors, if we use the California term) would then vote to approve or disapprove, without ability to amend. A simple or two-thirds majority, as appropriate, would be required to pass the bill. If it fails to get approved by the counties, it is returned to the Congress for amendment and reconsideration. Also, there’d be a deadline for counties’ decisions after which an automatic abstention is recorded, so that the counties can boycott, but not stall, a vote.

This also gives us a fairly good compromise between the state-federal complex in the US and the unitary governments of the UK, for example, which might be close enough to tradition (and give a sufficient taste of local rights and such) to bring more people on board.

It’s not perfect, in the sense that if we go based on current counties a county of 1,400 (Alpine) will have as much power as one of ten million (Los Angeles), but we can split and merge counties if necessary, or assign weighted votes based on population (or, even in addition, weight votes in each county based on the proportion of assenting supervisors).

By the way, with California, there’d be 58 counties, and with Oregon and Washington we’d total 135, before any fiddling. Also, it could be scalable to a US-wide level if secession didn’t happen; the national Congress could send the issues to state legislatures in the same fashion.

So, what are your thoughts? Do you think it could work?

(posted in cali_secede, free_arcadia, and my own journal)
link5 comments|post comment

Not sure if this has been posted before. [Dec. 17th, 2004|01:57 pm]
The California Secessionist Party

quantumfairie
For those genuinely interested in this issue:

MoveOn California

Not sure exactly how this guy wants to accomplish this, but he's calling for meetings sometime after the 1st of the year. Looks interesting.
link5 comments|post comment

(no subject) [Dec. 10th, 2004|03:01 pm]
The California Secessionist Party

quantumfairie
[mood |curiouscurious]

This discussing is all well and good, but what about getting something done?

Let's not just wait around for the next four years.

I know we're not the only people who support this.
link6 comments|post comment

Hmm. [Nov. 28th, 2004|02:30 am]
The California Secessionist Party

tkwrinklefiber
If you haven't read "The Last Days of the Late, Great State of California" by Curt Gentry (I think), go see if you can get a copy. It's old, and out of print, but I found mine in a used bookstore and it's worth a read.

Anyway, it recounts "California" falling into the ocean, essentially. More specifically, The Los Angeles Basin and San Diego sink into the ocean, the Bay Area is almost completely lost and is basically uninhabitable after, the San Joaquin valley is permanently inundated with ocean water, the Central and Redwood coasts are to varying degrees damaged, and Sacramento metro and the Sacramento Valley are leveled (in part by the collapse of the Oroville Dam, which probably would end up including Folsom, Nimbus, and Shasta Dams as well) but rebuilt. Essentially, the redwood coast, the northern parts of Central Valley, the Sierras, the Cascades, the Inland Empire, and the Alturas-Susanville plains are nearly normal in the end (this includes basically all of California's share of Jefferson State). Gentry obviously considers these to be more or less expendable parts of California's identity (as he shows in a somewhat lopsided (but understandably so) survey of certain events in 1970s California, including Reagan's gubernatorial run, Cesar Chavez's work, and various hijinks in Jackson). Personally, I see the redwood coast, Sacramento, and much of the Sierras as essential to the spirit of California, such that California is not gone unless they are too (he can be forgiven for ignoring the Riverside-San Bernardino sprawl, which I think was minor in the 70s).

Also, there's always this talk of splitting California into pieces, north and south, usually by partisans on either side who would like to be rid of the headache of some seemingly expendable side. This includes southerners who think that the LA-San Bernardino-San Diego megalopolis is the center of the earth and is unfairly ruled by Sacramento, and then northerners like myself who would like the opportunity to deny Los Angeles water rights and get on with life without them. The issue, though, would be where the line should be drawn. I would say roughly at the southern terminus of the Central Valley, or the northern border of San Bernardino County, but I'm sure there is ample disagreement (Angelenos with a hankering for Nepenthe and the Monterey Bay Aquarium, for example).

So, combining the state-split with Gentry's questionable choice of the essence of California, I (finally) arrive at what I mean to ask:

Are parts of California expendable to the holistic identity of California, and, if so, which parts? Moreover, are there parts of California's identity today that you'd rather not include in your idealized California? I'm speaking primarily in a sociogeographical sense, but you can answer as you like.
link15 comments|post comment

A dialogue and an announcement [Nov. 26th, 2004|06:43 pm]
The California Secessionist Party
rayne_vandunem
[mood |anxiousanxious]
[music |Street Protests in Kiev]

This is an interesting dialogue that I've carried on with MP Jimmy Ogle of the US Parliament. I'll tell you more after you read behind the cut...


Read more...Collapse )



OK, now if you've been reading the following article, I've just come across the chance to realize a future in politics and/or political reform, as a member of the California Parliament, representing the Pacifica Bloc. I will be posting this exact same dialogue at both free_westcoast and cali_secede, asking not only for support, but also if this venture will be worth it at all.
linkpost comment

Time to get serious now... [Nov. 7th, 2004|07:24 pm]
The California Secessionist Party
rayne_vandunem
I feel that the Secessionist movement in California needs to get alot more serious than it is right now. Here are a few prerequisite notes about what California is faced with now as far as the secession the state is concerned.

----- Immediate secession is DEFINATELY not possible as of yet. California is tied WAY too much to the federal government for an easy break to occur. Financially, fiscally, economically, socially, culturally, politically, militarilly, in too many aspects, the ties are too strong for the secessionist movement to grow any further than it potentially can right now. In fact, ANY secession movement within the politically-enforced borders of the United States cannot achieve an easy break, be it in the Southeast, Texas, New England, Cascadia, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, or Alaska.

In order for the ties to be softened, and simultaneously loosened up gradually, the common people have to see an immediate need that would invite this option into their individual environs. Furthermore, secession CANNOT be advocated immediately, as this would be seen as extremism by the American public. Instead, an organization or bloc that advocates 1) The reduction of Californian reliance on federally-provided stuffs like funds and whatnot (replacing it all with a thriving public sector), 2) the establishment of a parliamentary and equally-representable legislature, and 3) the divestment of the executive branch of almost all power, including veto, must become politically active statewide, attracting special electoral support from the urban areas of the 8 or 10 largest cities in California (particularly Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Long Beach, Oakland, Fresno, Sacramento, San Jose, Santa Ana, and Anaheim).

I call this the California Bloc, part of the West Coast Bloc, which will also have separate branches for Washington, Oregon, and Hawaii.

What do you all think?
link3 comments|post comment

I'm joining [Aug. 24th, 2004|12:09 am]
The California Secessionist Party

tkwrinklefiber
I, personally, wouldn't support secession if we got some sort of support from the federal governemnt, but I think we are being screwed over. Take our CalEPA for example. We have one of the few state EPAs in the United States that bothers to set its own policies and not just blindly follow whatever Todd-Whitman or Leavitt tell it to do. What do we get? We get an EPA and a Congress that are trying to restrict CalEPA's ability to regulate.

We are constantly brnaded the Left Coast, and while I like the term, I think that it is obvious that we are the necessarily evil left on for tax purposes.

If things don't improve, I will continue to support secession (preferably under my governorship). Especially with Oregon and Washington coming along, we would be a very stable and diverse nation (our only major problem would be water in Southern California, and that can be solved by helping American loyalists leave and emptying most of Los Angeles' population into those vacated domiciles to the north). We could have a foreign policy, and a seat on the UN (and, if we pay our dues, we can claim that we have the right to the US' permanent Security Council Seat and requisite veto power). Our new constitution and laws can fix the problems with Proposition 13, streamline government, subdivide land better, make Jefferson its own state, remove all the American idiocy from our proceedings, and make us into a new global presence.

As far as doing it, we would of course have to increase the psychological distance and animosity between California and the US. Then, we could request international assistance in a peaceful separatist movement; by this time everybody will hate the US so much anyway that there might be some military guarantee of our sovereignty courtesy of the EU or somebody. It hink that in twenty-five years it will be feasible.
link5 comments|post comment

Oh, the irony. [Aug. 3rd, 2004|01:41 pm]
The California Secessionist Party

ericrapp
It is a bit ironic that you have to join a secessionist movement.

But that's not the only reason I posted. First of all, it's not a bad idea. California, especially Southern California, has been getting screwed for years. We routinely pay a lot more in federal taxes than we get back. I'm also in favor of it in a more general sense, as decentralization is generally a good thing.

But, there are questions. The big one being, how would this be accomplished peacefully? There's only one precedent that I know of and it didn't turn out so well for the states that seceded.
link1 comment|post comment

First post [Jul. 26th, 2004|03:41 pm]
The California Secessionist Party
rayne_vandunem
Hi all, this is the first post here. This is a community that calls for the secession of the one of the world's largest economies from the Union: California.

So feel free to post and comment away. Thankies!
link2 comments|post comment

navigation
[ viewing | 10 entries back ]
[ go | later ]