U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-13-2013, 10:32 PM
 
Location: CO/UT/AZ/NM Catch me if you can!
4,694 posts, read 4,338,055 times
Reputation: 10278

Advertisements

^^^

Meh, the US didn't give the Confederation a real chance. We could have just re-written the Articles of Confederation instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-15-2013, 07:57 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
3,111 posts, read 4,886,726 times
Reputation: 5429
I can respect the idea of Weld County or any other area seeking to increase its voice inside of the United States. The US is a democratic republic, and becoming a new state would neither help nor hinder the ability of the United States government to do its job.

I cannot respect any idea that acts to break down the United States government by weakening it through various means such as a confederation. I might remind you that the Civil War was fought to resolve the issue whether the US government has supremacy over the states. Those who wish to create a new Confederate States of America are as misguided as those a century and a half ago.

If you are looking for historical precedents regarding strong central governments vs. strong local governments, you need to look no further than China. You will find that when China has a strong central government, it has been a powerful global force with great economic activity and clout. When China's central government is weak, the country enters a period of decline and disorder.

The great American century started after the United States resolved its supremacy issues, and the strong central government built the great transportation, communications, educational, and agricultural infrastructure. It created and enforced laws affirming the equality of all of its citizens. The United States had a single direction.

The team that works best is the team that works towards the same goal together. The team that is made of individuals who each have their own agenda and seek individual fame and glory will always fail.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2013, 07:57 AM
 
Location: Jamestown, NY
7,841 posts, read 7,301,301 times
Reputation: 13779
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluescreen73 View Post
It'll never happen. They have to create a statewide ballot initiative. If that passes then the Feds have to OK it.
I don't know that it would be constitutionally possible for states to be divided once they are admitted to the Union. The Constitution views states as sovereign entities. The feds administer territories that are not yet states, but once they are states -- or parts of states -- that administration ceases. There are provisions for admitting territories to statehood but not what to do with parts of states that have "seceded" from their original states. That didn't occur to the men who wrote the Constitution, and it hasn't ever actually come up in 224 years.

The only state to successfully secede from its "parent" and form its own state is West Virginia, and that was in extenuating circumstances. During the Civil War Virginia itself had seceded from the Union and was technically not part of the US, making the area occupied by Union troops in the western part of that state technically a federal "territory" which could be admitted to the Union. Union sympathizers in East Tennessee attempted to do the same thing, but the military campaign to occupy the eastern part of Tennessee failed so there was no new state there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluescreen73 View Post
There's another plan out there to redistrict the legislature (most likely the senate) so that each county has its own state senator. To me that's only slightly less ridiculous than the crackpot secession idea. There's absolutely no reason why Mineral County, pop. 708 should have as much sway as Denver County, pop. 619,968. That would lead to tyranny of the minority because all the sparsely-populated rural counties with more livestock than people would form a voting bloc that would overrule everyone else. The legislature wouldn't get anything done.
That plan won't pass constitutional muster. New York had exactly that kind of legislature from the 1890s into the 1960s: the Assembly on population and the State Senate on county. It was ruled unconstitutional because it violated the one man, one vote principle since, as you noted, the few people in a very rural county would have an equal vote with the many people in a very urban county.

Quote:
Originally Posted by smdensbcs View Post
CR, your concerns are obviously real and heartfelt, but are they substantially different from concerns/complaints rural areas in EVERY state have against their population centers? Does rural Oregon not gripe against the population blob surrounding Portland for all sorts of various and sundry reasons? Rural Washington against Seattle? Upstate NY against NYC? Rural CA vs all the big coastal cities (and north vs south for that matter). Really it just never ends, the complaints the minority has against the majority. How many states do you think we'd end up with if every disgruntled rural area got to declare themselves "independent?" I'm thinking we'd end up with between 300 and 1,500 US states, which might get a bit unwieldy, yes?
I agree. We'd end up like the Balkans or the former Soviet Union where every ethnic or religious group wants to be its own country (or state in the US's case).

In NY where I'm from, many Upstaters want to separate from NYC and LI (Downstate). The same issue appears in Illinois where many residents outside of the Chicago metro want their own state. When I lived in Nebraska thirty-five years ago, the western part of the state wanted to separate from the eastern part dominated by Omaha and Lincoln. I doubt that's changed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler View Post
^^^

Meh, the US didn't give the Confederation a real chance. We could have just re-written the Articles of Confederation instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
They gave it a dozen years (1776-1788) which was long enough to realize that it didn't work very well.

More pertinent to this discussion is the fact that whether the US is a federation or confederacy has no bearing on the tensions within states. The Articles of Confederation and the US Constitution are both based on the concept of a union of these political entities called states. What seemed reasonable in 1813 when almost everybody lived on farms or in small towns and even cities were small doesn't seem quite so reasonable two hundred years later when almost everybody lives in urban areas and the population in rural areas continue to shrink.

The development of huge urban islands in relatively small geographic areas surrounded by sparsely populated rural areas covering large geographic areas is based on geography and economic factors as well as technological innovations and cultural changes. The form of the national government -- confederation vs federation -- had nothing to do with this unless you want to blame the federal structure with encouraging economic enterprise rather than subsistence agriculture.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2013, 09:23 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
3,111 posts, read 4,886,726 times
Reputation: 5429
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluescreen73 View Post
It'll never happen. They have to create a statewide ballot initiative. If that passes then the Feds have to OK it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MtnHiker57 View Post
Supposedly, there are counties in NE and KS that want to join those CO counties. Just don't see it happening though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d View Post
I don't know that it would be constitutionally possible for states to be divided once they are admitted to the Union.
Actually, it is addressed in Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution:

"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."

I don't think that a statewide ballot initiative would be sufficient. New states can be formed from older states, but only with the "Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."

I don't see the legislatures approving this.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d View Post
The Constitution views states as sovereign entities.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the states are either "sovereign" or "independent." By definition, a sovereign government has supreme authority over its jurisdiction.

The idea of state sovereignty comes from the Articles of Confederation, and that language was specifically excluded from the Constitution.

Modern state sovereignty comes from the "states rights" clause of the Constitution in the 10th Amendment, but states rights are not unlimited as the Federal government was given several powers over the states, including the right to strike down state laws that conflict with Federal law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2013, 11:01 AM
 
Location: Jamestown, NY
7,841 posts, read 7,301,301 times
Reputation: 13779
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidv View Post
Actually, it is addressed in Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution:

"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."

I don't think that a statewide ballot initiative would be sufficient. New states can be formed from older states, but only with the "Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."

I don't see the legislatures approving this.
Should have pulled up my copy of the US Constitution and read it over. mea culpa.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidv View Post

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the states are either "sovereign" or "independent." By definition, a sovereign government has supreme authority over its jurisdiction.

The idea of state sovereignty comes from the Articles of Confederation, and that language was specifically excluded from the Constitution.

Modern state sovereignty comes from the "states rights" clause of the Constitution in the 10th Amendment, but states rights are not unlimited as the Federal government was given several powers over the states, including the right to strike down state laws that conflict with Federal law.
In hindsight, "sovereign" was the wrong word, but I'm not sure there is a simple description of how the Constitution looks at states. Basically, states are these fairly powerful political jurisdictions recognized by the Constitution, and frequently, especially in the past, were left pretty much to their own devices once they were admitted to the union.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2013, 11:51 AM
 
Location: CO/UT/AZ/NM Catch me if you can!
4,694 posts, read 4,338,055 times
Reputation: 10278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d View Post

They gave it a dozen years (1776-1788) which was long enough to realize that it didn't work very well.

More pertinent to this discussion is the fact that whether the US is a federation or confederacy has no bearing on the tensions within states. The Articles of Confederation and the US Constitution are both based on the concept of a union of these political entities called states. What seemed reasonable in 1813 when almost everybody lived on farms or in small towns and even cities were small doesn't seem quite so reasonable two hundred years later when almost everybody lives in urban areas and the population in rural areas continue to shrink.
A dozen years is nothing in the context of the history of a great nation. Right now we are having major problems with our federation. As you noted, what worked in 1813 may not work in 2013. It's time for the Nation - as well as Colorado and the other States - to engage in a discussion about what we should and can do to re-enfranchise the American people. I heard somewhere that Hitler is more popular with Americans than Congress is. No doubt this is an exaggeration, but respect for government is at an all time low, and the US is being run by ignorant talk show hosts for lack of effective action inside the Beltway.

When it comes to Colorado, the population of the rural Western Slope has been increasing, just as the population on the Front Range has been increasing. We don't have the same huge influx as Denver (thank God), but plenty of people are migrating out here too. You can't dismiss rural Colorado - or rural America for that matter - with an airy wave of your hand and a paragraph out of some text book.

Quote:
The development of huge urban islands in relatively small geographic areas surrounded by sparsely populated rural areas covering large geographic areas is based on geography and economic factors as well as technological innovations and cultural changes. The form of the national government -- confederation vs federation -- had nothing to do with this unless you want to blame the federal structure with rather than subsistence agriculture.
You are confusing demographics with Democracy. Population shifts don't re-write the Constitution. Rural America has every much a right to representative government as Urban America does.

It's stuff like your final statement which makes people on the Western Slope want to create their own State of "Uncomphagria" and the residents of Weld County to rid themselves of Denver. Do you actually believe that Cortez or Grand Junction is not interested in "encouraging economic enterprise"? Do you understand how arrogant your words are?

You dismiss the entire Western Slope and everything east of I-25 and outside the Front Range urban corridor as "subsistence agriculture" as if we are members of a third world country. MODERN agriculture puts the food on your table, and we even practice it out here on the Western Slope and I bet Weld County does, too. You make it sound like we're all out here barefoot plowing the fields behind a mule because we've rejected "economic enterprise."

So, the response out of Denver amounts to "Sell your family ranch outside of Montrose to Monsanto, shut down your small business in Rifle and quit growing crops in Wray. If you want a voice in your government, you must come live with us in Denver or, at the very least - Colorado Springs. Or else cowboy up and stop whinning."

We reject both those alternatives, and we're going to continue to stand up for ourselves since Denver sure as hell won't. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go feed the mule and cut the hay in the back forty with a scythe.

Last edited by Colorado Rambler; 07-15-2013 at 12:00 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2013, 01:36 PM
 
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
22,408 posts, read 39,758,015 times
Reputation: 23433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler View Post
A dozen years is nothing in the context of the history of a great nation. Right now we are having major problems with our federation.

... the response out of Denver amounts to "Sell your family ranch outside of Montrose to Monsanto, shut down your small business in Rifle and quit growing crops in Wray. If you want a voice in your government, you must come live with us in Denver or, at the very least - Colorado Springs. Or else cowboy up and stop whinning."

We reject both those alternatives, and we're going to continue to stand up for ourselves since Denver sure as hell won't. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go feed the mule and cut the hay in the back forty with a scythe.
This is part of the grand plan with the 'battleground-state-status'. All that emphasis is for gaining the electoral vote so the state will also become a pawn, as are the residents of the large counties within the state that control the vote statewide (And aim to make it impossible for you to farm or be an employer).

Some call it Californication, others not so pleasant.

Already the left coast (save Alaska) is controlled in this manner 2- 3 counties / metropolis areas control the vote for the entire states 30+ counties have not need to vote, as they get no representation.

This is Progress (for some...) It does save campaign dollars, as no need to advertise in 90% of the state, but... we (USA) is in a bad sort of fix.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2013, 02:56 PM
 
Location: CO/UT/AZ/NM Catch me if you can!
4,694 posts, read 4,338,055 times
Reputation: 10278
Quote:
Originally Posted by StealthRabbit View Post
This is part of the grand plan with the 'battleground-state-status'. All that emphasis is for gaining the electoral vote so the state will also become a pawn, as are the residents of the large counties within the state that control the vote statewide (And aim to make it impossible for you to farm or be an employer).

Some call it Californication, others not so pleasant.

Already the left coast (save Alaska) is controlled in this manner 2- 3 counties / metropolis areas control the vote for the entire states 30+ counties have not need to vote, as they get no representation.

This is Progress (for some...) It does save campaign dollars, as no need to advertise in 90% of the state, but... we (USA) is in a bad sort of fix.
You know, Mr. Rabbit, we have FINALLY found some common ground, and this gives me hope. If you and I have found something we can agree on (other than calling it the "left coast") then maybe other Americans on different ends of the political spectrum can, as well.











But I'm still going to tease you about senior citizens volunteering to run National Parks.

Yours,
- Rambler
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2013, 02:59 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
3,111 posts, read 4,886,726 times
Reputation: 5429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler View Post
You are confusing demographics with Democracy. Population shifts don't re-write the Constitution. Rural America has every much a right to representative government as Urban America does.
Through the Electoral College, rural America has representation beyond what they should have. If the country would vote for presidents on a national, one-person/one-vote basis, rural states would have very little say. Wyoming (pop. 576,000/3 EC votes), for example, has more say than an urban area like Denver county (pop. 620,000/0 EC votes)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler View Post
You dismiss the entire Western Slope and everything east of I-25 and outside the Front Range urban corridor as "subsistence agriculture" as if we are members of a third world country. MODERN agriculture puts the food on your table, and we even practice it out here on the Western Slope and I bet Weld County does, too. You make it sound like we're all out here barefoot plowing the fields behind a mule because we've rejected "economic enterprise."
Perhaps the problem is that farmers have become too good at agriculture.

Modern agriculture has resulted in larger and fewer farms producing more food than ever before. The rural population of Colorado and America has dwindled as farmers have sold their farms and move to the city. Like it or not, America's population and wealth are now concentrated in the cities - not the rural farms as it did in 1788.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler View Post
So, the response out of Denver amounts to "Sell your family ranch outside of Montrose to Monsanto, shut down your small business in Rifle and quit growing crops in Wray. If you want a voice in your government, you must come live with us in Denver or, at the very least - Colorado Springs. Or else cowboy up and stop whinning."

We reject both those alternatives, and we're going to continue to stand up for ourselves since Denver sure as hell won't. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go feed the mule and cut the hay in the back forty with a scythe.
With a smaller percentage of the population, rural areas of the state and the US have smaller voices in a democratic republic. If you believe in the premise of one vote per person, then the rural areas will always have little say in the political process. Truth is, as much as cities need rural America to produce their food, rural America needs the cities to manufacture their farm machinery, conduct their banking, and buy their crops.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2013, 08:54 PM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
22,189 posts, read 10,301,242 times
Reputation: 20183
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidv View Post
...
With a smaller percentage of the population, rural areas of the state and the US have smaller voices in a democratic republic. If you believe in the premise of one vote per person, then the rural areas will always have little say in the political process. Truth is, as much as cities need rural America to produce their food, rural America needs the cities to manufacture their farm machinery, conduct their banking, and buy their crops.
I'm glad to see that somebody gets it.

Weld County makes up about 4% of the population of the state.
The Denver metro area makes up about 50% of the population of the state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top