All errors should be reported to DonSurber@gmail.com

Wednesday, June 13, 2018

If California splits do we have to accept all 3 states?

Californians will vote in November on whether to divide into three states.

That's nice.

Do the rest of the states have to accept any of these three new states?.

The Constitution makes it plain that we don't.

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.

"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

The three new states would be territories of the United States, not states. Congress can dictate to the three new states the terms of acceptance. For example, Mormon-dominated Utah had to ban polygamy in its state constitution.

Ending sanctuary cities should be the price exacted to accept any or all of the three states.

###

Please enjoy my books in paperback and on Kindle.

Trump the Press covers the nomination.

Trump the Establishment covers the election.

Fake News Follies of 2017 covers his first year as president.

For autographed copies, write me at DonSurber@gmail.com

35 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. That I believe is the point. So yes.

      Delete
    2. I say No. We will recognize the inland, where they grow them tasty Blue Diamond almonds, and the other two (Ho-Lie-Wood and The City by the Gay) shall be extra-territorial.

      Delete
    3. Nah, the moment they divide into three, the San Andreas will kick two of ‘em into the Pacific Ocean.

      Thus Nature regulates stoopid.

      Delete
    4. Geologically, the San Andreas fault is just moving north - the mountains - both the sierra, and the parallel ranges along the coast are being pushed UP, it 'ain't' gonna fall, at all. The mountains just rise a bit more with each quake.

      Delete
  2. California doesn't seem to understand that not everyone is a charmed with their shenanigans as they are. Recent news stories about IQ's headeded downward seems to have its epicenter in the Golden State.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I like the idea of FORCING ALL THREE to remain Territories for some time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not more than ten centuries though lest they decide to invade red states to regain their rights to vote for congresscriminals.

      Delete
  4. Question: If this plan succeeds then when the state formerly known as California ceases to exist won't all of the Representatives and Senators of that former state become null and void? Also until Congress acts on admission of the new states the state formerly known as California would have no voice in the process. Have the proponents thought this through?

    Bucky

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Even though I live in California, that sounds good to me.

      I'm pretty well stuck here (family ties & Old Age).

      Delete
    2. I doubt they've thought it through. As proof, look at everything else the majority have supported in the past, like public employee pensions and the train to nowhere. They're idiots.

      Delete
  5. "Do we have to...."

    That's the first question I had when I saw the article. And I asked that question both in jest AND seriously.....

    ReplyDelete
  6. Another fantasy failure. Any congressional acceptance of this will fail along DTs electoral fault lines and could be a nice issue for him in 20. I don't think it will pass.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Being divided into three parts?

    Who the tarnation does California think it is? Gaul?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Best scenario: California splits, loses current seats in legislature, we give the three states territorial status forever. Drop statehood for Hawaii.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Seems the formation of West Virginia was unconstitutional as I don't recall the legislature of Virginia agreeing to the split...

    Thus precedent trumps your analysis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If they have a legitimate vote and California puts it on the ballot, I'd consider that constitutional. And Northern California will be the first one ready for statehood. Most of the looney bins live in Southern Cali.

      Delete
    2. I say, you gotta admire folks who seceded from secessionists.

      Delete
    3. Not really. Congress approved entry of West Virginia into the Union as a state.

      A state can vote to split, but both Houses of Congress have to approve the split before it goes through.
      Sadly, I don't think a formal vote by a state to split a state kicks the state to territorial status. Rather, it remains a single state until Congress approves the change (and remains a single state if Congress rejects the split). (At least that is how it worked for Vermont-New York and Maine-Massachusetts.)

      Delete
    4. Maine-Massachusetts is the real parallel.

      Delete
    5. Do the Words Civil War ring any bells?

      Delete
  10. Nope. West Virginia also had to pay Virginia for its share of debt.

    Virginia v. West Virginia, 220 U.S. 1 (1911), is a unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the state of West Virginia was bound by its constitution to pay one-third of the outstanding debt of the commonwealth of Virginia as of January 1, 1861.

    - Elric

    ReplyDelete
  11. Can Congress ban Liberalism as a condition to joining the United States? Sort of similar to the ban in Utah. That would mean of the coastal politicians would move to New York or Florida and then that part of California can elect some intelligent people to run the place.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Can they ban liberalism as a condition?
    Just think of all the lovely property along the beaches that will be affordable once the far left melts down or runs away to the east coast.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Look at the bright side...if California splits, doesn't that mean that at least one of the three have a chance to vote Republican? As it stands now, Democrats get 100% of the electoral vote.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, the plan is oriented around Lefty paradises, so the Demos still get 100% of the electoral vote.

      Delete
    2. And that is why the democrats in congress would never approve the split. Hopefully it doesn’t take a 2/3 vote so the democrat cote won’t matter.

      Delete
  14. What they should do is go back to the 6 state plan, make the megalopolis along the coast from San Dego to San Fiasco one state and make the rest 5 states.

    That way you quarantine the disease and get 5 Conservative states.

    ReplyDelete
  15. If the split occurs, there are 2 reliably Left states (4 Senate seats) and they've jiggered the northern part of CA so that it, too, will likely be in the Dem column.

    OTOH, it would be GREAT to have all of CA as territorial status for a while. Let the Feds enforce immigration, clean up school curriculum and so on. Big win!
    JimNorCal

    ReplyDelete
  16. "The three new states would be territories of the United States, not states. "

    Why is that? Why wouldn't California remain a single unified state until Congress approved such a split? According to Wikipedia, Maine remained an integral part of the state of Massachusetts until it was admitted as a state by Congress, conditioned by the Missouri Compromise. There's no mention of Maine ever being a "territory" of the United States. (Like all states it was, of course, always territory of the United States, but it was not A territory like Hawaii or Guam or PR.)

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm a native Californian, and I'd like to see a split into just two parts: One part being San Fransicko + Sacramento + Lost Angeles, and the other part being all the rest.

    Then I'd like to see Part One pushed into the ocean, for sanitary and environmental reasons (gotta clean up all that crap somehow.)

    Just those two simple steps would restore California to Golden State status immediately!

    Sadly, there are too many fruits and nuts here that wouldn't vote for this simple plan, sigh.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Splitting the state is not necessary. Self-government can be improved by reconstituting the state into a confederation. You'd still have just two Senators. You'd have some common institutions with quite spare functions, but otherwise each component of the confederation would live its own life. Suggested components: Greater Los Angeles, Greater San Francisco / San Jose / Oakland, North (encompassing greater Sacramento and 3d tier cities like Santa Rosa, Stockton, Modesto &c), South (encompassing greater San Diego, Fresno, Bakersfield, &c). The boundaries between the components could be periodically adjusted according to the terms of a practice manual added as an appendix to the state constitution, so that the tract development around Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay is gradually incorporated into those components as it advances.

    ReplyDelete
  19. It won't go through, but that doesn't stop me from voting for it anyway out of spite as a native Californian who remembers when this state didn't suck balls.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Doesn't Texas' admission to the Union have a clause that they can vote to divide themselves into 5 states? I'll trade the Dems 6 new senators from what used to be California for 10 new senators from Texas.

    ReplyDelete