Posted on 07/03/2011 7:45:59 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Because the bolded condition clearly applies to the second clause only. It refers to States, plural, where in the first clause only a single State would be involved. You might also note the construction the Framers used when the consent requirement applied to multiple clauses was to begin with the phrase, "No State shall, without consent of Congress" and then continue with, "do A, or B, or C," utilizing commas (rather than semicolons) to separate the items.
ML/NJ
“Brown’s office scoffed at the idea.
“A secessionist movement? What is this, 1860?” Brown spokesman Gil Duran reportedly said.”
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Laugh now.. reload later Gil.. Chump.
I agree with your characterization here. But it could have been argued that at the time Virginia was not one of the States. (They certainly had no voting representatives in Congress.)
ML/NJ
It’s not going to gain traction. Guaranteed. I’ve lived in CA 35 years and know the state like the back of my hand. It’s not going anywhere. Heck, awhile back the San Fernando Valley tried to secede from the City of L.A. That actually made it on the ballot where it was soundly defeated. Anyone who actually thinks the system is not rigged against secession is smoking something that isn’t tobacco.
California is too big to be ruled by one governor, one legislature, and two Senators. They need to break it up. It’s as simple as that.
Norte California, Meso California, and Baja California?
There is already precedent that contradicts your statement: West Virginia.
Besides, your interpretation doesn't seem logical. According to your theory, parts of two states could form a new state, but part of one state couldn't. That doesn't really make sense.
And you think the Virginia Legislature agreed to this? !!
ML/NJ
In my opinion there are three California(s). Northern, Southern and Bay Area
Yeah! California needs four Senators, or even six Senators. Why should a big State be limited to two? (D*mn Framers !!)
ML/NJ
“What is this, 1860?” Brown spokesman Gil Duran reportedly said.”
Nope—1776.
One FReeper (sorry I don`t remember who) suggested the following, to which I agree:
Create an east-west, rather than north-south split. Start north of the Bay Area and cut a 50-mile-wide swath that ends south of L.A. County. Resulting from that split would be Coastal CA and the remainder of the state. That way, the diseased, smaller liberal portion is severed from the larger, more American one. With Coastal CA on its own, the remaining CA entity might have a chance of survival as an American state.
Otherwise, the whole state will be eventually ceded to Mexico in time.
We probably need to break up quite a few of our larger population states. The citizen to representative ratio is seriously out of whack when compared to other states and I believe that our republic is showing signs of strain from the decreasing connection between citizens and representation.
It’s probably also time to consider city states for some of our most densely populated areas. If a city has a larger population than the rest of a state it WILL begin to twist the entirety of state politics around it and abandon the legislative needs and priorities of the rest of the state.
But if Virginia was not a state: a) there is an admission states could secede; b) the North fought against a foreign entity; and, c) reconstruction laws are unenforceable as against foreign entities, thus the entire set of reconstruction laws and the 14th amendment were improperly enforced against states that had seceded.
“We hear these kinds of proposals every once in awhile here in California. They go nowhere. Besides, if SoCal divorces from NoCal, it won’t be any more conservative. It will be just a Mexican territory.”
That’s true. They’ll have to keep Los Angeles and San Diego out of the “new” state.
Never will happen.
Perhaps, but just making the attempt could have some interesting ripple effects.
“Sometimes I think this country would be better off if we could just saw off the eastern seaboard and let it float out to sea.”
—Barry Goldwater
... and if it was a State ... you come to contradictions too. (Because the other assumption that MUST be made is that Honest Abe acted legally.)
About the 14th Amendment, be sure to read There is No "Fourteenth Amendment"! by David Lawrence from the September 27, 1957 (a time of decidedly less political correctness!) U.S. News & World Report, if you have not done so already. (And if you have, read it again!)
ML/NJ
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.