Gordon Ryan - State of Rebellion

“While not all bad in its context, these actions have certainly given rise to a worldwide instability, which often, as history has shown, causes the turmoil of which you speak. We are, of course as you know, withdrawing our troops from the Middle East, as quickly as the security of those nations allows.

“The president is on record as being supportive of the need to assess each situation as it develops and has assured the American people of his determination to provide a secure and stable domestic environment and to evaluate each international development with an eye toward the strategic interests of the United States. Beyond that, Henry, I feel it inappropriate to project our response as to the proposed intentions of the federal government, or indeed, to preclude any necessary specific measures, other than to say that we firmly believe that all citizens, including those in California, have the right to live peaceful, normal lives and to live free of the fear of military or government-sponsored organizations inserting themselves into their lives.”

“A follow-up, if I may, Madam Vice President,” Schikman almost shouted, as a din rose from others wishing to pose their question. “It is well-known that Senator Turner, a fellow Californian, has supported your nomination and appointment to the office of vice president. Have you agreed to reciprocate by supporting his agenda for California’s secession? Does his support of your appointment indicate that you agree with his stance? And finally, as VP, what is your official stance on California?”

“Henry,” Prescott said, “Senator Turner has represented the State of California for nearly twenty-five years. He understands their problems perhaps better than I, notwithstanding our common agricultural origins. I intend to work closely with the Senator and, where his recommendations further the interest of both California and the United States, will be supportive of his legislation. As regards California’s position vis-a-vis the Union, my stand before the Senate committee is a matter of record, and I’ll reserve any further comments until the chief justice has issued a statement on the Supreme Court’s review of the constitutionality of the referendum.”

Clarene looked away from Schikman and called on Ann Wallingford of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Press comments continued regarding the most pressing issues, including California’s secession plans, Australia’s republican movement, and the United States’ intentions with regard to the rising Irish debate in the aftermath of the IRA’s killing of the vice president.

“Good evening. I’m Paul Spackman, and welcome to the Six O’ Clock Eyewitness News. The battle lines have been drawn, and the strategy has become clear. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a six-to-three split decision, has overturned the California election approving secession. Representing the minority opinion, Justice Harlan Michaels declared that the California secession vote was constitutional, citing as a precedent the Treaty of Guadelupe Hildago of 1848, wherein Mexico ascribed certain rights with regard to the California territories, among those being the right to divide into multiple jurisdictions.

“Justice Harlan has opined that the United States assumed the obligations of that treaty when California was acquired from Mexico. Supporters of the secession movement have claimed that by extension, the treaty affords them the right to separate from the United States. The minority opinion confirmed the validity of that treaty and its applicability to the current situation.

“Speaking for the majority, Justice Holcomb cited a later Supreme Court case, Texas vs. White, et al., 1868, wherein Texas was deemed to have rights to certain United States financial instruments despite the fact that Texas had seceded during the Civil War. Declaring Texas’ statehood indissoluble, the court in the 1868 post-Civil-War decision honored Texas’ claim to federal bonds procured prior to the secession. Justice Holcomb’s opinion is that if Texas’ statehood remained intact during the course of the Civil War, California would inherit that indissolubility and void the election results. In other words, the original congressional contract approving California’s entrance into the Union in 1850 is irrevocable.”

Spackman shuffled a few papers and continued. “Last year, the California Supreme Court basically ducked the question and ordered a statewide election for the single purpose of determining support for secession. Immediately following the overwhelming vote to secede, thirty-eight United States Congressmen from California filed a motion to overturn, and the matter was elevated to the United States Supreme Court. Faced with an even larger majority in favor of secession, the U.S. Supreme Court nevertheless addressed the issue, rendering, at noon today, their decision to overturn the California election.

“California House Speaker James Huntington, who has voiced his opposition to secession, was contacted at his office today. In a terse comment, Huntington said the California legislature would proceed with the formation of a constitutional committee. U.S. Senator Malcolm Turner, a long-time proponent of secession, indicated that he has been in touch with the governor’s office, urging the California chief executive to proceed without delay to implement the will of the people and not to be deterred by the Supreme Court’s actions.

“In a related story, FBI sources today reported that the Western Patriot Movement has declared unqualified support for the secession, warning that attempts by agencies of the United States government to thwart the will of the California people will not be tolerated and will be met with military force.”

Walnut Creek, California

Dan Rawlings sat with Nicole watching the evening news from the living room of her Walnut Creek apartment. It was the second time he had been inside her sanctuary, both of them having avoided their growing desire. Earlier, during an autograph session at a local Barnes amp; Noble bookstore in Walnut Creek for his new novel, Dan had been besieged by both opponents and supporters of secession, primarily because in the closing chapters of his American family saga, the protagonist’s family was shattered, to the point of violence, by their opposing views on a fictitious secession movement, not unlike the present situation in California.

The combination of Dan’s election to the California legislature, the timing of the book’s release, and the inclusion of the topic of secession had sent book sales soaring, elevating Voices in My Blood to number four on the New York Times Best Seller list, up from number twelve on election night. It was a phenomenal feat for a previously unpublished author. His literary agent had already received three film offers, all of them over seven figures, and further negotiations were in process.

Nicole sat quietly as the news of the court ruling was delivered, leaning her head on Dan’s shoulder. “Seems we’re headed for conflict whichever way we turn,” Dan said, lightly stroking her hair.

Trying to lighten the mood, Nicole snuggled up close. “You’re a legislator and a famous author, Mr. Rawlings. Do something.”

“I’ll do something all right,” he said, taking her face in his hands and kissing her boldly.

“Ummm, that’s not exactly the political solution I had in mind, Mr. Assemblyman, but it was innovative.” She laughed. “But really, what’s the legislature going to do? Surely they can’t sit by and just watch anymore.”

“They’ll, or maybe I should say, we’ll, be forced to openly declare either our support or opposition and take some official action. I have an appointment with the Speaker of the House tomorrow,” Dan said.