(1) Forming a state within a state is illegal under the Constitution.
(2) Such a plan in CA just isn't feasible, unless we're looking at a pure East/West split of CA. The logistics isn't there.
“(1) Forming a state within a state is illegal under the Constitution.”
-
Well, not exactly...
...no new states 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.
-
...but it still ain’t a gonna happen...
How did West Virginia get created if forming a new state from within a state is unconstitutional?
That just means that one state cannot completely encircle another state.
My concern is that a split of California into two states must leave both states economically viable on their own. We have the north/south option and the east/west option.
North/South: If the split is below San Francisco, then Southern Cal with San Diego, Los Angeles, San Bernadino, and Monterrey, could survive. Northern Cal with San Francisco, Sacramento, Stockton/Modesto and Tahoe, might survive but will have less industry than Southern Cal.
East/West: If West Cal begins at LA and ends in Santa Rosa, then they have the tourism business, as well as Hollywood. East Cal would have the military in San Diego, Edwards, and Travis, and all the farming from Visalia to Manteca/Modesto to Stockton to Shasta. They'd have Sacramento and Tahoe, but Sacramento is a government town. Mendocino north to Redding would be very rural and not much of an economic factor. Could East Cal survive on its own?
-PJ