YES...Divide California!

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | June 2, 1998 | By Columist JOHN KING

[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...."

[dagoofyfoot]

California is generally a conservative with the exception of the San Francisco Bay Area and the LA Basin


Finally a beacon of light hits the darkness of a whole lot of insanity postings.....


from a fellow freeper on the coast of So Cal!

[GATOR NAVY]

When it was convenient to carve West Virginia out of Virginia, for that purpose the North changed its mind.

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.

[You Dirty Rats]

At least West Virginia voted for Dubya in 2000; if they hadn't, President Gore would be kissing Saddam's ass right now in Baghdad.

Then again, if West Virginia was part of Virginia, it all would have gone to Dubya anyway.

I say Virginia should sue to get its counties back. It would get Sheets and Jay Rockefeller out of the Senate, which is reason enough to do it.

[clamper1797]

To Emperor Norton and his comely consort Hop-Me

[MegaSilver]

Can't we just raid the Bay Area?

[heleny]

Yes, but if the war was fought under the assumption that Virginia didn't have the right to secede in the first place, then the Constitution still applied to it, right?

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.

[heleny]

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 ..."

"... 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?

[Bill Hutton III]

No, the Proposal is not Unconstitutional:

The US Constitution says, "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union..."

and tells us exactly how to do it:

with, "the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."

As the California Constitution says: "All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit,and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require."

The net effect over-all will be more Republican senators and more Republican electoral votes, but the liberal wackos in San Francisco and LA will also "benefit" - They will have the opportunity to run riot without us slowing them down any more. Give the liberal legislators exactly what they want - they can be the ‘Pollute Bureau’ of their own People's Republics (LA & SF).

It's like cutting out a cancer before it’s too late.

[GATOR NAVY]

...without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

I see. We were missing that line before. It's kind of important.

[Susannah]

The success of conservative areas would be striking compared to SF and LA county

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.

[You Dirty Rats]

The semicolon divides the clause concerning the formation of a state within another state from the clause concerning forming a state from two or more states, or parts of states.

This is corroborated by the clause, divided by a comma not a semicolon, that requires the consent of the States concerned, not State.

This may seem like a nit-pick, but if you look over the Constitution, you will be that the use of semicolons was widespread and was use to enumerate different powers.

If you think about it, one of the key battles of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia was between large states and small states. If it had been permissable for the large states to break themselves up into small units, then the small states would have lost their countervailing voice in the Senate.

It would be very interesting to see what the discussion was at the convention concerning this particular part of the Constitution.

[heleny]

The semicolon divides the clause concerning the formation of a state within another state from the clause concerning forming a state from two or more states, or parts of states.

This is corroborated by the clause, divided by a comma not a semicolon, that requires the consent of the States concerned, not State.

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.

[Bill Hutton III]

A "semicolon" does not a "period" make, in this period or any other.

Example (1):

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts passed legislation separating its "District of Maine" from the rest of the State, June 19, 1819; the voters of Maine approved this on July 19, 1819. Thereafter Congress admitted Maine as a new State out of Massachusetts, as of March 15, 1820.

Example (2):

December 18, 1789 Virginia legislature separates the "District of Kentucky"; the voters approve on February 4, 1791. Thereafter, June 1, 1792, Congress admitted Kentucy as a new State out of Virginia.

Direct voter approval was not necessary, but probably helped in obtaining the consent of the Congress.

[jern]

Great, 8 Democratic Senators. No thank you

[Bill Hutton III]

	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)

[DaGman]

"That agreement with the Texas Republic was signed before Texas was admitted as a state. Now that Texas is a State, I don't think they could legally split into five states."

Yes, Texas can split into as many as 5 states right now if the inhabitants so choose.