California movement to secede from US cleared to gather signatures

verb (used without object), seceded, seceding.
1.
to withdraw formally from an alliance, federation, or association, asfrom a political union, a religious organization, etc.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/secede

A formal withdrawl, would require both or all parties to agree with the terms of secession.
If an agreement can't be reached, the secession fails and other means to leave may take place. Such as the south did in the civil war, and the US colonies did in the Revolutionary war.

Had England won the Revolutionary war, we'd be bowing to the Queen of England now.
And if the south had won the civil war, blacks would still be slaves.

 

Are you saying that France could not withdraw from the United Nations unless every nation agrees?

 

I haven't said anything to this point on treason.
But:

trea·son
ˈtrēzən/
noun
noun: treason; noun: high treason; plural noun: high treasons

1. the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
   "they were convicted of treason"
   synonyms: treachery, disloyalty, betrayal, faithlessness; More
   
   antonyms: allegiance, loyalty
   • the action of betraying someone or something.
     plural noun: treasons
     "doubt is the ultimate treason against faith"
     synonyms: treachery, disloyalty, betrayal, faithlessness; More
     
     antonyms: allegiance, loyalty
   • historical
     the crime of murdering someone to whom the murderer owed allegiance, such as a master or husband.
   • https://www.google.com/search?q=tre...L79XaAhVK8IMKHaY3BB8QBQgkKAA&biw=1920&bih=949

From the above definition, correct.
It would fall more in line with betraying an allegiance.

 

To be formally recognized, I guess that is what I'm saying.
Now if one or 2 nations disagree, they may not formally leave the UN, but what would be done about it?

Maybe there are bylaws in the UN that doesn't require 100% approval. I don't know.

 

Betraying an allegiance? Did the treaty between the countries indicate that there is no ability of any country to leave the treaty at will? If not, then there's no betrayal.

 

A sovereign country may enter into and leave treaties at will. That's what being sovereign means.

 

the UN is not a country.

the USA is

 

No it's not. It's a group of countries who entered into a treaty with each other.

 

Not sure what you're arguing. I am not agreeing or disagreeing.
But I would see a sovereign nation leaving a treaty before the end date as a betrayal of that agreement.

Such as the treaties we have with our native Americans. If one leaves or breaks any part of the treaty that would be a betrayal. There may or may not be consequences.
Treaties would be pointless if there were no consequences.

 

we are not 50 nations.

get over it.

ratification of the USC ended all nation-hood status of the states.

 

What end date is in the constitution?

 

Really? How does a country entering into a treaty make it no longer a sovereign country?

 

ratification of the US Constitution ended all nationhood rights that may have previously existed.

Furthermore only the 13 Colonies and Texas ever possessed any nationhood rights.

 

the US Constitution is not a treaty between nations.

its the founding document of ONE nation.

let go of your Fake News.

 

No, it is an agreement established between countries.

 

you have no idea what you're talking about

you're just making **** up.

we are not 50 nations.

 

It's in the treaty itself:

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

It's an agreement among countries.

 

if we are seperate nations, how come we dont have the authority to print our own money, make our own international treaties, host and create foreign embassies, create our own armies, regulate trade between ourselves and other States?

 

Because we agreed not to in the treaty.

 

yes, those powers were permanently ceded to the Federal govt.

 

I don't see the language in the treaty that says "permanent". Can you show me?

 

Secession is still an open question. A state would have to initiate secession proceedings to see what would come of it.

 

there is not one legal scholar on Earth who believes that the USA is 50 seperate nations which can easily reassert full national soverignity.

 

That's just not true. The Constitution, unlike the AoC, has no perpetually clause. Theoretically a state can leave by the same mechanism that formed D.C. and West Virginia. The state that wants to leave needs to vote on separation and if passed, Congress needs to pass a companion resolution. If both these are achieved, you have an independent state. The civil war only happened becuase of how much of the tax base was being lost. When it was just a few malcontent states there was a very strong sentiment in D.C. that an amicable bilateral separation could be achieved. Than Lincoln was elected and a few malconet states turned into 1/2 the country. Even at this point separation wasn't off the table, Lincoln himself called succession a patriotic duty if the public and national government were in total opposition in his 1st Inaugural Address. Ft. Sumpter was what pushed the CSA and USA past a peaceful separation.

Texas vs. White was a vengeful reconstructionist ruling that completely ignored the explicitly stated right to separation in the Annexation Treaty that joined the US and Republic of Texas. If the possibility of separation became a real political possibility and things remained civil, that ruling wouldn't have much chance of being upheld. Treaties have the same legal standing as the Constitution so Texas vs. White has no legal standing in any objective viewing of the issue.

 

In order to leave the USA, the Congress and 3/4s of The States must act to create a new seperate nation out of existing US territory.