The Second Civil War is underway

Which is only going to hurt the state and the residents in the state....

Gov. Gavin Newsom is calling a special session of the Legislature to shore up the state’s legal defenses against President-elect Donald Trump, he announced Thursday.

Newsom said Trump’s campaign statements and first-term policies on abortion, electric vehicles, immigration and disaster aid warranted immediate legislative powers ahead of lawmakers’ planned return to Sacramento.

“The freedoms we hold dear in California are under attack — and we won’t sit idle,” Newsom said in a statement announcing the special session, which will start in Sacramento on Dec. 2.

California served as a stronghold of the “resistance” to Trump during his first term, filing more than 120 lawsuits challenging the administration over its actions on air pollution, immigration, gun control, health care, union dues and other areas.

The proclamation from Newsom — an eager surrogate for President Joe Biden and then Vice President Kamala Harris who was himself considered a likely contender after Biden dropped out of the race — signals the state is ready to step into that role again.

Lawmakers are already scheduled to return to Sacramento at the start of December to prepare for next year’s session. Newsom’s proclamation specifically calls for the special session to authorize more funding for Attorney General Rob Bonta and state agencies to combat Trump’s actions.

Newsom billed it as “the first of several actions” he and lawmakers would take against Trump. Legislative leaders issued statements in lockstep with the governor.

“California has come too far and accomplished too much to simply surrender and accept his dystopian vision for America,” state Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire said in a statement.

“Voters sent a clear message this election, and we need to lean in and listen,” Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas said in a statement. “But we also must be prepared to defend California values, no matter the challenges ahead.”

The proclamation targets Trump’s dismantling of clean-vehicle rules, his repeal of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and his withholding of disaster aid. It also references potential restrictions on abortion medication, and casts a net beyond Trump’s statements to include “statements and policy papers issued by individuals close to his campaign and by Republican congressional leadership.”

California, with its overwhelmingly Democratic legislature, is rare in its ability to have the governor convene the Legislature with the express purpose of challenging an incoming Republican president. He’s called lawmakers to Sacramento outside the regular legislative calendar twice in the last two years — most recently in September — both times to pass aggressive new regulations on the oil and gas industry to try to prevent price spikes at the pump.

Members of the state’s Democratic supermajority, including Rivas, had already said they were open to coming back again to take on Trump.

Newsom.

Newsom.

WHY CAN'T ANYONE SPELL THIS SIMPLE FUCKING NAME CORRECTLY????????

Seeing as the majority of Californias are Democrats, or at least vote Democratic, this makes perfect sense.

Many people criticized the Democratic Party of. It enshrining the right to abortion in law, rather than letting it hang on the Roe decision.

Newsome is just doing on a state level what many people thought the Democrats should have done nationally. Pass laws to support and codify rights won in the courts.

Which U.S. military base will he fire upon?

Because people think they know how to spell a familiar name so they get sloppy.

R1, no it won't

^ he has already threatened to do that....

sounds kind of insurrectiony

Well, that’s just it, r9. What happens when California refuses to cooperate with Trump’s immigrant round-up and Trump declares an insurrection and sends in federal troops.

High risk of this, I fear.

R10, it would be completely unconstitutional for a president to use the military against a state which had not declared itself independent from the U.S..

Not that this would stop Trump, but it would not be Constitutional.

[quote] it would be completely unconstitutional for a president to use the military against a state which had not declared itself independent from the U.S..

Is that the definition for insurrection going forward? It seemed to be less than that a few years ago.

[quote] [R10], it would be completely unconstitutional for a president to use the military against a state which had not declared itself independent from the U.S..

That is completely wrong. Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard and sent federal troops into the Arkansas to enforce desegregation. Kennedy sent troops to Alabama.

Besides, what makes you think Trump gives a fuck?

Please. Newsom and the state resisted during the first Orange Hitler term. We will do it again and he has my, and else everyone I know, full support.

Supremacy clause battle coming up. Federal usually wins.

No one should hope for a second civil war tho. Despite what you think, there will be an election in 2028. This too shall pass.

I would more than gladly discuss, in private, ALL of this and more with Gavin.

With Lindsey Graham as Scarlett O'Hara!

Glad I left. California is fucked. Dump will do anything and everything his little black heart desires and there is nothing to stop him this time. Perhaps, Susan Collins can muster some concern. Or Merrick Garland can form a committee. No one in DC can keep up with him because he breaks every rule, law and ethical code known to man. Other people just don't think that way. He won. He won a lot.

So the Trumpkins are calling that a civil war. Meanwhile red states did worse under Biden yet the Trumpkins didn’t bat an eyelash.

How … typical.

I wouldn't expect California to ever receive any disaster funds from Trump's fed.

I’m not a Trumpkin. I’m rooting for California.

R18 -you know you would rather be in Ca

No really-you would rather be in Ca

[quote] federalized the Arkansas National Guard and sent federal troops into the Arkansas

R13, Those examples show a President using state National Guard troops from that state WITHIN that state. That is constitutional. Using federal troops within a state to police its citizens is absolutely unconstitutional.

No. Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne.

r4, see R3

California is a goddamn mess. Newsom won’t last much longer. People are shitting on the streets, people are homeless and shooting up in public, and the state is a financial disaster. There will be another Republican governor in no time like Arnold.

R25, only because the Governor of Arkansas had already mobilized the National Guard to unlawfully stop the integration of schools. Had that been done the state guard would have been mobilized, as that is the legal means.

I suppose that Newsom could use the National Guard to do…. something? But again, using federal troops against Americans is unconstitutional.

Jesus you bitches are over-determining this.