Posted on 04/07/2004 12:18:41 PM PDT by Bill Hutton III
... " It's Time To Divide California 4-state plan would bring politics closer to home
CALIFORNIA -- As this political season draws to a welcome close, only one clear message has emerged from this virtual campaign:
Enough already.
The problem isn't just the latest batch of dreary candidates and deceptive propositions. It's bigger than that -- as big as the sprawling state of California and its 33 million inhabitants.
Let's get straight to the point: California is too big to be governable, too big for its residents to feel any connection with the state government that oversees their lives. So make a clean break with the past and chop California into three states, maybe four...."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
I know the counties that formed West Virginia had voted against secession in the first place. I take it that's what the Union used to legitimize the split. But I hadn't realized before I read this that there was a Constitutional ban on splitting admitted states. It appears that it was a case of crass politics just as you say.
140 years later, at least Virginia has sent some Republicans to Congress. West Virginia has blessed the rest of the country with the a-hole Robert Byrd for over 40 years.
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.
...
So, with the consent of Congress and of the Virginia legislature, West Virginia could be formed from within Virginia.
Perhaps Congress conveniently ignored the requirement to get the consent of the rest of VA, but, after the war, there was no motivation to force WV to re-join the rest of Virginia, which would have necessitated their consent to the new junction, especially with the politically expedient reasons the other poster explained.
And, after all, if the North lost the war, at least they would have part of what was formerly Virginia.
I wouldn't know if Texas could exempt themselves from a provision of the US Constitution, since statehood requires ratifying the Constitution, but it appears that Texas (or CA) could split into several states with the consent of Congress and of the Texas (or respective state) legislature.
"... without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."
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.
With the consent of the CA legislature and of the Congress, why would it be unconstitutional to divide CA?
If it wasn't, then the party that controls Congress could divide a state packed with its members into 51 small states and get 100 new Senators.
With all their consent, why not?
I see. We were missing that line before. It's kind of important.
In the governor recall election, SF and LA counties were the only two that went to Gray Davis.
The last population figure I saw for California was near 36 million and it's still growing. Geez, Canada's population is near 30 million.
The semicolon is used in the 1st amendment, and I understand it to mean that Congress shall make no law... regarding any of the semicolon-divided clauses, and "abridging" extends from the second clause into the third clause ("the right of the people peacably to assemble...").
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Are you saying that forming one state by joining multiple states or parts of states is something that concerns all other states in the Union and requires consent by the legislatures of every state? Then, why wouldn't they just say "States," instead of "States concerned?"
Also, does "no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State..." mean that we prohibit division of states (which might fall under the category of formation of states by "Parts of States"), or that we prohibit the formation of a hierarchy with a state-within-a-state?
If division is never allowed, why wouldn't they switch the order of the two semicolon-divided clauses to say something like this (switching the two stricken-through clauses beginning with "be formed"):
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall 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; nor any State be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State?
Article IV, Section 3, first part
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.
The grammar used back then is sometimes hard for me to understand or match with what I understand to be correct grammar nowadays, so it's always a pleasure for me to learn more about the Constitution through exchanges like these with you or others on FR. Thanks.
|
State |
Population |
Capital |
Democrats win: |
ALTA |
7,039,362 |
Sodom-Frisco |
Democrats win: |
LA |
9,519,338 |
Hollyweird |
Republicans win: |
NORTH |
4,109,226 |
Sacramento |
Republicans win: |
CENTRAL |
4,146,418 |
Fresno |
Republicans win: |
INLAND |
3,397,182 |
San Bernardino |
Republicans win: |
SOUTH |
5,660,122 |
Oceanside |
(w/Inyo County in North)
Because the state's liberals are heavily concentrated in the LA and SF areas, the six-state split is a net win for Republicans, not a loss!!
New California Summary:
2 DEMOCRAT States = only 4 Democrat Senators (and only 33% of the electoral votes)
4 REPUBLICAN States = 8 Republican Senators (and 67% of the electoral votes)
Yes, Texas can split into as many as 5 states right now if the inhabitants so choose.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.