It is neither. A nation is a social construct, and the federal government is just that: a federation (of states). Saying California is a nation-state is perfectly legal and a reasonable position to have.
Of course I don’t think it’s treason, but it is likely a deliberate non-standard use the term. “Nation-state” is widely used to refer to nations which act as sovereign states on the international stage. US states are not widely viewed as sovereign states, largely because their ability to enter into direct relationships with other countries is largely limited.
I think Newsom is trying to convey that California will act as a sovereign state on the international stage, in an economic capacity. He may even be engaging in diplomatic missions to secure necessary protective equipment. Treaties are not the only way to be an international actor. California's capacity to make credible commitments is severely limited by the constitutional restrictions on states ability to enter contracts with foreign actors, but that may not be enough to stop Newsom from forging informal agreements.
And a lot can change again. Last time the lines shifted seriously was the great depression. Seems like crisis is a catalyst for shifts in power structures...
>Not since the civil war it isn't.
Unless trump is planning on arresting governors brown and Newsom, along with dozens of former and current California legislators, this is a toothless threat.
California is a nation state. Think that is treason? Run up.
33.7166357, -118.0594170
Individual American states are still, by law, sovereign. They're subject to but independent of the federal government. That's why stay at home orders have been going state-by-state, for example; the President has no general authority to tell the citizens of California what to do.
“Sovereign state” is a widely used term in international politics. It is widely accepted to refer to states at the international level which are largely independent and are capable of international relationships. One of the main limitations of US states is that only the federal government can conduct international relations.
Fair, that wasn't a good word for me to pick. But I think Newsom's "nation state" is still fair; it's a nation (Californians have a group identity) and a state (it has broad independent power to decide how it'll handle matters of governance).
That slow saying that California is "in" the US, and it's "dependent" on the US so it's "independent".
And anyway Californians have no group identity beyond the political connection to the state government. They aren't an ethnic group or a religious group or bound by a common culture regardless of the political border. That's the main distinction between a (non-government) "nation" and a (government) "state".
But again, "nation-state" is a widely used term with a widely accepted definition. That definitely is not "any region with any amount of group identity that also contains a government."
But they'll flee to Texas at the drop of a hat when they see how far their housing dollars will go. That makes California suspect as a national identity.
Seems like if that were true then housing costs in CA would go down, and then people would move back, and then they would go up until, well, an equilibrium is reached where people are paying what they're able and willing to pay to live somewhere.
At a practical level, the law is not that which is written down, but what is enforced.
The Confederate states may have had good textual arguments why it was legal for them to secede from the US. However, they were conquered. Their claims were ultimately meaningless because they could not defend themselves.
In the intervening years, the federal government has only gotten stronger. See this [1] discussion of the Little Rock Nine - particularly around the use of the National Guard as an example.
At a practical level, I don't think anything will come of this, but only because California isn't trying to exercise sovereign power.
I didn’t think the question was whether it was legal for California to defy federal laws or actually secede (which of course it wouldn’t be illegal ), but rather whether the official making the claim in words (but not actions) that California is a “nation state” was legal
> whether the official making the claim in words (but not actions) that California is a “nation state” was legal
IANAL
I have to imagine it is. The first amendment is quite broad. As long as no one is urging people to take concrete steps (e.g. don't pay federal income tax) I think pretty much anything is on the table.
