I posted an article about the “Yes California” secession movement on April 15th. The “Yes California” co-founder and current president, Marcus Ruiz Evans, reached out to me for an exclusive interview after reading my article. So I interviewed Evans, who wanted to set the record straight.
This is the second of three articles from our interview. The third and last article will be posted on April 25th here on The Independent Sentinel news website.
Part 2 of 3: Yes California’s Secession Constitutionality and California’s Economic Future
When asked about the current status of the Calexit movement, “Yes California” president Marcus Ruiz Evans, said, “We’re going to file an initiative in August to be available the day after Donald Trump is re-elected.” He went on to say they were “one of the possibly first groups anywhere in California, and the Calexit movement, to say that Trump will be re-elected.”
I pressed Mr. Evans on the title of the new initiative and he said, “We have three different initiatives that have been approved by different California Attorneys General, and we can simply pick any of those.” They have already filed 10 initiatives since 2015. The goal of the next one is to get a referendum on the ballot aimed at seceding from the Union to make California an independent county.
I asked how an independent California movement squares with Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution, which opponents use to say California cannot secede from the Union. Evans argued that there’s a process to follow that has to involve consent from the Legislature. Evans cited Texas v White, an 1869 Supreme Court case involving Reconstruction following the Civil War.
In my research I found that Supreme Court Justice Salmon P. Chase, in a lengthy opinion, maintained that Texas never left the Union during the Civil War and held that the United States is “an indestructible union.” Chase wrote, “Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null.”
Evans, however, asserts that the Texas v White decision says a state cannot “unilaterally secede,” but that a state can secede with the consent of Congress.
Evans addressed this Constitutional issue in an interview on The Ingraham Angle.
We discussed California’s economy as an independent nation. Evans told me California essentially has already been operating as a nation based on the “California culture.” He added, “The California government already provides a level of regulatory authority for everything the Federal government does.”
Mr. Evans, referring to state versus federal regulations, said that California has created a “shadow government” that has a skeletal network already in place. He reiterated that California already operates as an independent nation.
In a follow-up email, I asked him to elaborate on his description of the “California culture” economy. Evans wrote, “Governor Schwarzenegger and Governor Brown signed trade deals with regions around the world. California’s economy is dependent upon international trade.”
He added, “California has always been about international trade and capitalism and always will be. Frankly, we’ve been doing international trade and capitalism since 1540, about 100 years longer than there’s ever been an America.”
When asked how California, with the 5th largest economy in the world, could sustain its economy, which has $1 trillion in unfunded pension liabilities and a debt to GDP ratio of 125%, Evans said, as a former Republican, that he still believes in low taxes and low regulations.
He said, even among the liberal members of Calexit, no one is talking about a Socialist Eutopia or Communism. Evans added, “Everyone is aware that California is a trading hub, and we’ll have to continue to trade goods and sell products.” He called it “traditional Adam Smith capitalism.”
Mr. Evans acknowledged that California has huge debt, but he believes this is their comeback. He mentioned other countries that have huge debt, but argued that they have a right to continue to exist as a country.
My next question had to do with the leadership of California after secession.
In my research I found that in 2015, Calexit activists collected signatures for the President of California Act (AG File No. 2015-013). The proposed measure would have amended the California Constitution to change the title of the chief executive from “Governor” to “President.” Not enough signatures were collected to put it on the ballot.
So I asked who would lead the new California, especially in light of the fact that Gov. Newsom has on several occasional called California a “nation-state.” Evans said they would follow international law and precedent and have a vote, Evans cited California’s initiative process that allows people to file an initiative, and it you get enough support, it goes up for a vote and becomes law. (Note: Only 26 states have the initiative and/or referendum process.)
The yescalifornia.org website mentions that a new California could have either a Democratic Republic or a Parliamentary Republic form of government. Evans indicated that a lot of their support comes from people who do not like the two-party system because of corruption.
He acknowledged that a lot of their support comes from Democrats. Evans said they would make sure to accept Republicans who don’t like Trump, and Libertarians including Bernie supporters, but that it’s about California and for people to keep their political party in the background.
I asked Mr. Evans about which politicians support Calexit. Although no California politicians have come out and publically endorsed it, he said they all know about it.
He compared it Roosevelt’s New Deal. Evans said other people came up with the ideas for the New Deal programs, but then, as Evans put it, “FDR jumped forward and said I was there the whole time.” He used this as an analogy as to why no California politicians have come out to formally endorse Calexit.
I asked Evans what would happen to the U.S. Representatives and Senators from California. He said Calexit would have no impact on the Senate.
Evans used this as an opportunity to discuss the Electoral College that is based on the U.S. Census. He said California has not determined a president since 1870. (Note: There was not a presidential election in 1870.) Evans said the presidential election has always been determined before California’s votes were counted. This is because of its time zone on the west coast.
My research, however, found that Californians voted for winning Democrats numerous times, starting in 1852 with Franklin Pierce (California became a state in 1850), in all four of FDR’s elections, in 1992 and 1996 when Bill Clinton was elected president, and again in both of Barack Obama’s elections. No Republican has won the California Electoral College vote in a presidential election since 1988 (George H. W. Bush).
Watch for Part 3 of 3 tomorrow: An Independent California’s Natural Resources, International Trade, and Military Forces (April 25, 2020)
wpDiscuz
