Replies

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?

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.