I'm just an extinct fossil myself.

Moonbeam believes anything is A is K possible.

Reads like the USA in AS.

The whole time the giant waste of oxygen Obama was President, Texans talked about secession and nothing ever came of it. Lets all hope and pray that California has enough stupidity to actually follow through with this notion. With the huge number of electoral votes that they carry out of the equation the Left may never carry another election.

I imagine the Mexican invaders of Kalifornia would flood our reshaped border~what used to be the Oregon, Nevada and Arizona state lines~with ejected gringos, snowflakes in particular, before a wall or any serious border security could be put in place.
Yes, it would be a sad day to get all those lib voters back. Maybe we could deport Kalifornia's worst to that mess in Europe made by people who think like they do.

It would not be the first time the Supreme Court came up with a ruling based on thin air.
Or why I was desperate to see the Evil Hag get beat.

Same here in New Mexico. Albuquerque and Rio Rancho are both liberal blue but most of the rest of the state is red, red.

Let 'em go!
I'l bet the secession lasts less than Scaramucci.

I do not believe any of that, except for Obama condemning imperialism, which I condemn too. I think the rest of that is how the parties say they're light-years apart while both executing the bi-partisan consensus. Even if it were true, much of it is not about the initial topic of parties being "critical" of the "men and women" who serve. This is moot though because I categorically reject all of it except for the part that says President Obama has at times been critical of imperialism. I don't think you can have an appeasement policy toward a religion. I think the expansion of NATO was the opposite of appeasement. I don't think President Obama or President Trump secretly supported Russia.

"...does keep many idiots busy..."

Wonderful...............that would be great !!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, I'm near Sacto. The poverty, crime and unemployment throughout central valley Cali is very, very sad. There are little towns down the valley where unemployment hovers near 50%.

These morons are doing this because Trump won. That's like divorcing your wife for getting a speeding ticket.

Anymore...I really feel like an outsider here. If I'm one of the smartest guys in the room we're in serious trouble...

letting the money go to them won't change the deep crap they are in, in all other areas. Hell, Moonbeam is going to have Kalifornia pay for global warming lies.

As a Californian living in the central valley, I see a broken-down system rife with poverty. It appears that state revenue is based on shaking down the Tim Cooks and Mark Zuckerbutts of the world. The rest of the state could revert to a third-world hell-hole at any moment.

The SCOTUS might disagree with you, since it ruled against Texas in White vs Texas, stating Texas was in an "indissoluable union" with the other states. It also stated in that ruling that only by revolution or the consent of the other states could the bonds of union be dissolved.

Then you haven't paid any attention to either President Obama or Hillary Clinton - both of which were openly critical of the military. President Obama intentionally neglected and hamstrung the military in theatre and undermined their effective abilities in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Hillary Clinton was frequently caught swearing at the military officers assigned to her protection details as Secretary of State. I could also go on about John Kerry's derogatory comments about members of the military intentionally mutilating Muslims in Iraq when nothing of the kind was ever reported.

PS - President Obama specifically denied the notion of "American Exceptionalism" - especially while on his Apology Tour immediately following his first election. In fact, he railed about "military imperialism" as he saw it as exercised by both the US and Britain in his book Dreams of My Father.

One last note: I am currently reading Winston Churchill's six-volume history of the Second World War. What is interesting is that in the first book he goes into great detail about the groundwork laid for it since the end of the First World War in which he very squarely criticized all three major parties in his government - including his own Conservative Party - for being willing to disarm "to further peace" while allowing hostile regimes to build their forces and abrogate their treaty agreements in a move of appeasement. This has been one of the ongoing platforms of Democratic policy since at least the Vietnam War. Obama's appeasement policy towards Islam resulted in the formation and growth of ISIS and the resulting destabilization in the Middle East. As time goes on, I would put good money on Obama being the next Neville Chamberlain, and it will be his appeasement of Russia that will be his legacy.

Sorry for the less than perfect grammar (again;^)

Atlanta is similar in GA. The majority of less dependent people outside the city voted for Trump and carried the state. I think this is true in many "red" states.

Actually, I would argue that the terms are necessary for an orderly exit. Because no such terms exist, neither party has any restrictions upon what may happen in such an event. Secession is completely an extra-Constitutional procedure - meaning that there is no governing process to effect such an act. Without those terms, literally anything can happen. In the case of the original attempts at secession from the Union which led to the Civil War, the Union determined that its very existence was imperiled by such a move, but it wasn't until the Federal garrison at Fort Sumpter was fired upon that hostilities began.

With regards to the Tenth Amendment, I would point out that it (the Tenth Amendment) only sets up jurisdictional boundaries for which powers are granted to the Federal Government and which ones are reserved for the States to act upon. The problem with your interpretation that a valid law can not nullify itself. If the Tenth Amendment is to be interpreted as reserving the right to secede to the States, it nullifies itself because secession voids the very relationship that gives any and all meaning to the Tenth Amendment in the first place. If one wants to give precedent for secession, one would be on much stronger legal footing to cite the Declaration of Independence itself rather than the Tenth Amendment. Of course that means that one has to come up with a list of justifiable complaints such as the seventeen listed in the Declaration.

"which of the two leading parties is more critical of our men and women in the Armed Forces."
I don't see either party or any mainstream politicians even remotely critical of people serving in the Armed Forces. I have seen nothing remotely like that in my life.

The old saying was Republicans want to fund the military but not use it, and Democrats want to use the military but not fund it. If that were still true, that would point to Republicans being more popular with the military because I imagine they like funding and don't like war. That saying seems no longer true after President Bush attacked Iraq and began using drones to attack suspects who would be difficult to arrest. President Obama continued the policy and increased it.

Now it seems like both parties say they want to fund the military but only for defense and not to get into wars. But both parties actually do get us into wars and use the military to attack hard-to-capture suspects.

President Obama said it outright in response to some foreign development, I think it was the Syrian Civil War, that part of "American Exceptionalism" is the US is the only country able to project power around the globe, so US need to get involved militarily. It was an odd use of American Exceptionalism, which to me means something completely different.

I'm sure if you ask the parties they'll say they are light-years apart on this, but I do not see it one bit.

Amendment X

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.

Each state as an independent entity has the authority to act on in its own, its people's, best interests. Because the Constitution doesn't grant such power to the fedgov it remains a power of each State, and each States people. Permission to depart is not needed except by the people of a State.

Fo the ones caught out in the open, I can just see their arms looking like old-fashioned TV rabbit ears antennas and hear them chant~
Hands up! Don't shoot!
Hands up! Don't shoot!
Hands up! Don't shoot!
etc. . . .
Mexican soldiers grin as they take them alive and distribute crayons and coloring books.

You think Mexico wants their pansy butts? Only if those "safe spaces" are somewhere west of the coastline. Every Mexican I ever knew had more gumption in his pinky than a whole "snowflake" ever did.

No terms need be mentioned. The 10th Amendment clear states the fedgov can only do what it is expressly permitted to do,in writing, by the States. Each State, acting as independent elements of the Republic, can leave for whatever reason their people desire (CA). If you are referring to the extraction of federal assets from departing States that doesn't really apply to participation.

The fedgov is so far beyond its mandate that it needs to be severely pruned to fit back in its plant pot.

There's A is A. In Kalifornia, A is K.
Puff, the magic dragon lived by the left coast sea . . .