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.
Glenfield, Arricle 4, Section 3 doesn't actually prohibit new states from forming, it's just provides that Congress and the state legislatures approve. I think that clause is less about preventing it from happening, and more about facilitating it through peaceful means.
I agree, but I also think no state legislature would approve such a move, and even if they did, it would have to result in the same number of states or fewer or other states would block it under Article 5.
Realistically, Puerto Rico might become a state. I found this statement on Wikipedia: The island's current political status, including the possibility of statehood or independence, is widely debated in Puerto Rico. In November 2012, a non-binding referendum resulted in fifty-four percent of respondents voting to reject the current status under the territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution.[18] Among respondents to a second question about alternatives, sixty-one percent voted for statehood as the preferred alternative to the current territorial status.[19] In December 2012, . . .
I think it could happen in the next 10 years. Subdividing states to make other states isn't going to happen our lifetimes. There is no reason to imagine that any population would desire doing this.
I think it could happen in the next 10 years. Subdividing states to make other states isn't going to happen our lifetimes. There is no reason to imagine that any population would desire doing this.
silibran, the way that I see it, some regions of states feel marginalized, such as in the example I offered. It might require a huge amount of popular support and political momentum, but I think that it's definitely in the right circumstances.
Well there is the proposed state of Jefferson, combining rural counties in northern California and southern Oregon. The proponents of this did attempt to secede in 1941. However after Pearl Harbor the idea was shelved although it is still brought up from time to time.
Well obviously new states are going to have to be carved out of existing states in the future. There's no more out west. If Alaska should ever get a lot more people, that state would likely be split up. Also I think the UP of Michigan should be its own state.
silibran, the way that I see it, some regions of states feel marginalized, such as in the example I offered. It might require a huge amount of popular support and political momentum, but I think that it's definitely in the right circumstances.
Its not going to happen. It is possible that people in a state like Texas or S.C. might decide to do a secession, but the majority of citizens in each state won't support it.
And imagine how costly it would be to implement in a time of straitened finances. It isn't going to happen.
Why would we want to create a new state just because "It's been a while since the US admitted any new states"?
Your proposed The Steel Valley because sits squarely on top of an enormous amount of natural gas almost seems comical and more importantly, against the United States Constitution.
Perhaps we can advertise for those eligible countries to apply for statehood to the United States. But nothing else "just popped into" my head.
None. We need to break the US up if we have any hope of survival. Ditch the South once and for all.
Yeah. The "south" only has the largest retailer in the world, largest trucking company, largest poultry producer, largest producers of cotton and soy beans. Might want to rethink that.
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.