If california splits into two states north and south Californias will it make much of a difference in pitical (Fairfax: college, live in)

[citizensadvocate]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

If CA were a country, it could make it own states which it can't do now because the US constitution doesn't allow states to do that.

Will it do much good? Wouldn't the new California country just suppress the "states" within it like they are doing now to the more conservative areas such as Central Valley, inland empire, and Orange County? Or like how the federal government now suppress the states?

I would be curious if parts of California can opt to stay with the US and not secede with CA?

An interesting topic to talk about is what does the US constitution require creating a new state or redrawing state borders? It had happened countless times since 1776.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by citizensadvocate

Will it do much good? Wouldn't the new California country just suppress the "states" within it like they are doing now to the more conservative areas such as Central Valley, inland empire, and Orange County? Or like how the federal government now suppress the states?

I would be curious if parts of California can opt to stay with the US and not secede with CA?

An interesting topic to talk about is what does the US constitution require creating a new state or redrawing state borders? It had happened countless times since 1776.

I'm not going to go into the California secession topic here as we've had two threads on that before, one of which was locked so I don't want to hijack this one.

To answer your other question; the constitution guarantees a republican form of government and any new states must have a republican form of government at the time of admission to the union. All states therefore are their own republics. However, unlike the national government, state governments are unitary, not federal. Because of this, they cannot have their own states. Article 4, section 3 clause 1 of the constitution states; "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States 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 basically, states are forbidden from forming any new states either within their borders or by collusion with other states. All new states are solely the jurisdiction of congress. This is why the proposed state of Jefferson cannot come to fruition. Neither California nor Oregon have the authority to create it and because it would be a mostly rural state dependent on federal dollars, it is very unlikely that congress would approve of it. I know I said I wouldn't go too far into secession but I will say, the only realistic opportunity for a Jefferson would be in a situation where California were allowed to make its own states.

[citizensadvocate]

Now the question is whether congress approve Jefferson as a new state should they decide to break free from CA. If Jefferson want to break free whether CA seceded from the Union or it. Jefferson would mean More support for the GOP in this case. Probably if Jefferson included Sacramento and interior of Bay Area they will have enough tax dollars to avoid too much burden on the Feds.

What will happen if the Carolinas or the Dakotas want to rejoin each other will congress approve?

So I guess Congress be more willing to approve North and South Californias split than any other way just like how the Dakotas and Carolinas split.

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by citizensadvocate

Now the question is whether congress approve Jefferson as a new state should they decide to break free from CA. If Jefferson want to break free whether CA seceded from the Union or it. Jefferson would mean More support for the GOP in this case. Probably if Jefferson included Sacramento and interior of Bay Area they will have enough tax dollars to avoid too much burden on the Feds.

What will happen if the Carolinas or the Dakotas want to rejoin each other will congress approve?

So I guess Congress be more willing to approve North and South Californias split than any other way just like how the Dakotas and Carolinas split.

Your questions arent much well thought through. Secession of a state from the union or a region within a state breaking away into new statehood is only viable if the state/region is capable of self support. Which "Jefferson" isnt. Not even close even with Sacramento and environs included.

States could combine for reasons and would be smart to do so if it strengthened them.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by StanleysOwl

Your questions arent much well thought through. Secession of a state from the union or a region within a state breaking away into new statehood is only viable if the state/region is capable of self support. Which "Jefferson" isnt. Not even close even with Sacramento and environs included.

States could combine for reasons and would be smart to do so if it strengthened them.

This coming from a guy who was all rah rah about #CalExit and who THINKS that California could survive without Colorado water rights.

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

This coming from a guy who was all rah rah about #CalExit and who THINKS that California could survive without Colorado water rights.

What is it you find incongruous?

And apparently you can't distinguish between rational examination of fact-based potential and "rah-rah" boostering?

California could survive without Colorado water rights. But why would it have to? Guessing you are again taking the completely absurd and unjustified position that any separation would have to be adversarial. Which completely ignores Californias powerful and attractive position to negotiate on friendly terms. Such limited thinking.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by StanleysOwl

What is it you find incongruous?

And apparently you can't distinguish between rational examination of fact-based potential and "rah-rah" boostering?

California could survive without Colorado water rights. But why would it have to? Guessing you are again taking the completely absurd and unjustified position that any separation would have to be adversarial. Which completely ignores Californias powerful and attractive position to negotiate on friendly terms. Such limited thinking.

What negotiation position? 5000 national guardsmen show up at Sacramento and say "GTFO" to Brown, Newsom, and other secession leftist scum. They put California under federal reconstruction. What can they do?

Absolutely nothing.

[KerrTown]

I mentioned secession since California is so far away and the United States is too big. It looks like the United States will be split like the Roman Empire eventually into East and West. Watching the Inauguration on television live for Westerners is too troublesome with the time differences and experienced the difficulty first hand since I happened to be visiting out West that day. I felt out of touch watching stuff going on 3 time zones and 3,000 miles away compared to back home in Houston being only a time zone and 1,500 miles away.

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

This coming from a guy who was all rah rah about #CalExit and who THINKS that California could survive without Colorado water rights.

The United States and Mexico do a good job implementing a treaty regarding Rio Grande River water. Same with the U.S. and Canada regarding the Great Lakes in general. A treaty between the new Western American nation, the United States and Mexico regarding the Colorado is not too far-fetched.

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

What negotiation position? 5000 national guardsmen show up at Sacramento and say "GTFO" to Brown, Newsom, and other secession leftist scum. They put California under federal reconstruction. What can they do?

Absolutely nothing.

That would erode support for the military among the people that was building since the beginning of the second Iraq War. That would expose them as a colonization force for the Easterners and interfering in internal politics, where negotiation and compromise is the rule. Slavery was foreign to California and the West but effects from postbellum racism and segregation--namely the blatant form with separate facilities--was brought from the East to the West unabated.

Trump is The Negotiator. He would be smart putting his skills to work since his "administration" has been a failure so far. Pulling that stunt is like conquering Canada and annexing it. The U.S. could not do it during the War of 1812 and never had the power or wherewithal to accomplishing it.

[MaskedRacer]

It is almost 70 years since any new states have been added now. By far the longest in USA history. We are overdue. There should be about 60 states now. There are easy ways to achieve this:


1. Washington DC should become "New Colombia". However Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax Count in Virginia along with Montgomery, Charles, and Prince Georges County in Maryland should split off and be a part of New Colombia.

2. Split New York into two states North and South of the Tapazee Bridge.

3. California should split to at least 3 ways including Jefferson

4. Got cases to split Maryland and Colorado

I'm a big fan of states rights. I personally am against Gay Civil Unions but the Federal Gov't should not enforce this. This is a state issue. If Alabama does not want it, then let them not have it. And if you live in Alabama and like gay civil unions, well that is the beauty of being American, move to a state that does allow it.

Think about the term "United States". The country was founded where each state is its own governing authority united by just two things: Common national defense and Common currency. Lets get back to that.


I am glad to see parts of federalism remain though. The presidential election is a good example. Its the collection of states that decide the POTUS with the electoral college, not the people directly en masse. Mass democracy is nothing short of mob rule and that means the desires and wants of California can overrun the other states which goes against federalism. So that is a good thing. If anything I think the electoral college could be modified to where in each state only the 2 senate based electoral votes go to the state wide winner whereas the rest of them are allotted by congressional district winners. It would make places like California, Texas, Virginia, and Pennslyvania more interesting for sure.

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

What negotiation position? 5000 national guardsmen show up at Sacramento and say "GTFO" to Brown, Newsom, and other secession leftist scum. They put California under federal reconstruction. What can they do?

Absolutely nothing.

And hilariously once again you return to this adolescent "Red Dawn-ish" scenario of armed insurrection as being the only possible approach. When, in fact, it is a completely impossible approach. And is historically unfounded. These topics are not about armed uprisings. These are about political solutions. In which scenarios California's vast resources, ports, leading economy, nation's largest manufacturing economy, intellectual capital, investment capitol, agricultural contributions to the nation, and more all add up to unquestionably the strongest foundation for cooperative treaty making in the world's history of birth of nations.