The Two-State Solution [a view from the Left]

The Stranger (Seattle) ^ | 10 March 2005 | Sandeep Kaushik

[Publius]

The Stranger is Seattle's Sandinista newspaper, serving a Hard Left clientele whose chief interests are homosexuality, bondage, sado-masochism and the Democratic Party. But once in a while, they have an article worth reading -- one that gives an insight into the Hard Left.

I'm also pleased to find a writer for one of these rags who can actually write a complete sentence and a cogent paragraph.

[Publius]

Ping. Please ping any chapter members you can think of.

[thoughtomator]

It's unconstitutional to create a new state from the territory of another state. Otherwise New York would long have split off from New York City.

[pabianice]

What a great idea! We can cut Boston off from Massachusetts so the Lunatic Leftists in Bean Town will no longer control the state congressional delegation! Make the cut at I-495! This will leave the state of Massachusetts to the west and the state of Marxachusetts to the east. I love it!

[andyk]

Where on Earth was this author when libs were talking about secession and moving to Canada right after the election?

[Publius]

It's constitutional if it is agreed to by the state and by Congress. (West Virginia was the exception.)

[andyk]

It's unconstitutional to create a new state from the territory of another state. Otherwise New York would long have split off from New York City.

Correct - same goes for California :)

[Blood of Tyrants]

Hey! That's MY idea! That's okat, though, it means two more conservative REPUBLICAN Senators in the Senate (new total 57-45). It will also mean that a new state could get rid of the burden of unreasonable taxes an create a more business friendly environment than they currently have.

[thoughtomator]

US Constitution, Article IV, Section. 3. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

[Maceman]

Make the cut at I-495! This will leave the state of Massachusetts to the west and the state of Marxachusetts to the east. I love it!

Is it OK if we make the cut-off 128? That works better for me.

[Publius]

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Bottom line; it is constitutional if the above language is honored.

[Publius]

See Post #11.

[ken5050]

Ifd you followed this logic to its conclusion, which would include splitting California, and giving the DSofC two Senators, well, soon, the Senate would be larger than the House..

[thoughtomator]

I think you are misinterpreting the clause. This section can be broken into three parts on the semicolons:


a) New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union;

b) but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State;

c) nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.


The consent of legislatures and Congress does not apply to the (b) part of the clause, only to the (c) part. So if Eastern Washington wanted to be a new state on its own, that would be unconstitutional. However, if Eastern Washington wanted to join with northern Idaho and create the state of Washaho, and got the consent of both legislatures and Congress, that would be constitutional.

[sure_fine]

check out this sampling from Seattle

This is the current topic on John Carlson's radio show. This picture will be placed on a huge downtown billboard. Apparently the website indicated on the billboard is a homosexual 'dating' service.

the DJ ask for your opinion, I sent mine in bold red

[Blood of Tyrants]

You are both wrong.

U.S. Constitution Article IV. Section. 3.

Clause 1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Otherwise, West Virginia would not be a state.

[Publius]

Then how do you explain West Virginia?

[Blood of Tyrants]

What is the use? I believe that every county in the stae went for Kerry anyway.

[andyk]

Thanks for the clarification.

[thoughtomator]

Hadn't Virginia seceded from the Union at the time West Virginia was created? I don't think Virginia was a state within the Union at the time, thus W.V. didn't violate the middle clause of that section.