Voters in California contemplate forming new state

[Niroshi]

That is incorrect, because with a couple exceptions, States are not "members of a union" in the sense of the EU. They are partitions of the whole for ease of governance. Texas joined the union by treaty, and the original 13 formed the union. Only those states have the legal ability to dissolve their relationship with the Union. The rest of the states only exist because the Fed granted them sub-governance status, which, should they attempt to say "we're taking our toys and leaving", the Fed can simply rescind.

I suppose a state could be kicked out of the union, but that wouldn't make much sense.

Are you sure about the original states thing? I've never heard that, and the reading of Texas v. White seems to hint that no state has the power to leave.

The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States.

From part of the majority opinion.

[Mormolyce]

Slow news day article.

Is that even legally possible?

I think technically yes.

But asking whether secession is legal is kind of comical, it's more a question of might than right.

[Reeve]

With the consent of both the state legislature and the federal legislature, any state may be divided into whatever state divisions required.

The relevant passage:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...cleiv#section3

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.

That said, this isn't going to happen for a variety of reasons. I don't especially like that my voice as a person living in Houston is drowned out by the more conservative rural parts of the state, but I deal with it. I'm sure the more conservative rural parts of California can learn to cope.

[Sunseeker]

Are you sure about the original states thing? I've never heard that, and the reading of Texas v. White seems to hint that no state has the power to leave.

I was clarifying that they were joined via treaty, as opposed to being divided out of Fed-owned territory. Technically there are ways a treaty can be dissolved even if it is considered "indissolvable". That usually just refers to unilateral dissolution. The Fed and Texas could agree to allow Texas to leave, we could add an amendment kicking Texas out. The Fed could collapse and all treaties it made would be null and void.

But as it stands, no side alone can dissolve the treaty.

- - - Updated - - -

That said, this isn't going to happen for a variety of reasons. I don't especially like that my voice as a person living in Houston is drowned out by the more conservative rural parts of the state, but I deal with it. I'm sure the more conservative rural parts of California can learn to cope.

The Conservative and rural and agrarian parts of California are really left for "conservative", and they do get a lot of say in the government actually. The extreme of the extreme who essentially want no laws and no government don't, and those are the people backing these sorts of movements. People who don't get their way, so instead they want to make a place where only they are allowed to have their way.

[Reeve]

I was clarifying that they were joined via treaty, as opposed to being divided out of Fed-owned territory. Technically there are ways a treaty can be dissolved even if it is considered "indissolvable". That usually just refers to unilateral dissolution. The Fed and Texas could agree to allow Texas to leave, we could add an amendment kicking Texas out. The Fed could collapse and all treaties it made would be null and void.

But as it stands, no side alone can dissolve the treaty.

Oh man, please don't say the Fed when you mean the Federal Government. It's like saying Apple, when you're talking about Applebottom Jeans (and the boots with the furrrr). People are going to think Apple the electronics company. I'm going to think the Federal Reserve, which is what virtually everyone means when they say "the Fed."

Sorry, just a bit of a pet peeve.

[Elegiac]

Well, forming a new state would necessarily be a two step process, one of severing from the 'host' state and by definition from US statehood, and then applying for statehood.

The broadest possible interpretation of Texas v. White would only be read as a prohibition against a state seceding unilaterally. It pretty much is logically impossible for there to be no way to ever dissolve a relationship with the union, when the union is in and of itself a voluntary one. As noted, it's not a street gang. That decision also doesn't really deal with the hypo of a state voluntarily partitioning itself. In fact, it really couldn't stand for that even in an expansive reading, or else West Virginia would have to slink back to Virginia.

I'm fairly sure that the decision which described the union as perpetual and indissoluble doesn't require a broad reading to infer that entering the Union is a one-way transaction.

[Hooked]

They want to split it into 6 states. I have seen the signature collectors at wal mart.

[KrazyK923]

Whats with this guy and his threads these days? Did Nakura get banned and is using another account?

[Hooked]

Whats with this guy and his threads these days? Did Nakura get banned and is using another account?

I believe this thread may really become relevant, they are determined to get the bill on the ballot. If it gets on the ballot which ever side has the most advertising money will win.

[Elegiac]

I believe this thread may really become relevant, they are determined to get the bill on the ballot. If it gets on the ballot which ever side has the most advertising money will win.

Never going to get past Congress.

[Sunseeker]

I believe this thread may really become relevant, they are determined to get the bill on the ballot. If it gets on the ballot which ever side has the most advertising money will win.

Doesn't matter. A state doesn't have the authority to create more states.

[Mormolyce]

That is incorrect, because with a couple exceptions, States are not "members of a union" in the sense of the EU. They are partitions of the whole for ease of governance. Texas joined the union by treaty, and the original 13 formed the union. Only those states have the legal ability to dissolve their relationship with the Union. The rest of the states only exist because the Fed granted them sub-governance status, which, should they attempt to say "we're taking our toys and leaving", the Fed can simply rescind.

I suppose a state could be kicked out of the union, but that wouldn't make much sense.

And California joined the Union because the US forced Mexico to cede it after it won the Mexican-American War. Which I guess if you look at it that way makes California a toy the US can do with as it pleases.

I think the law has a different view though.

Not that it matters, if we want to talk about right to secede and the law then eg, Texas is still the rightful property of Mexico, just in the hands of thieves and brigands. In reality rights are just fanciful pieces of paper made to justify the realpolitik.

- - - Updated - - -

I believe this thread may really become relevant, they are determined to get the bill on the ballot. If it gets on the ballot which ever side has the most advertising money will win.

Care to take a wager?

[Halicia]

Doesn't matter. A state doesn't have the authority to create more states.

Maine says hello.

[Rukentuts]

Never going to get past Congress.

It'd get past a Republican Congress: more electoral votes.

[Permatree]

Fuck it let them have it. They...Aren't like the rest of us... They can take "hella" back while they are thinking about leaving.

In all seriousness, the logistics for becoming your own state pretty much leave this train of thought dead in the water. I don't see them being able to financially sustain themselves, unless they take the emerald triangle with them (woohoo pot money, also sort of kidding but not really), but Humboldt is pretty liberal so idk how much support they would throw the more conservative inland counties that are after this.

EDIT: Wow I misread the shit out of that... Didn't get my nap today D=

[Halicia]

when the hell did Cali get 3 senators? I was under the impression I never missed an election.

state senators.

[obdigore]

"We have 11 counties up here that share one state senator," compared to 20 for the greater Los Angeles area and 10 for the San Francisco Bay Area, said Aaron Funk of Crescent City, a coastal town in Del Norte County near the Oregon border. "Essentially, we have no representation whatsoever."

when the hell did Cali get 3 senators? I was under the impression I never missed an election.

State Senate

http://senate.ca.gov/senators

[shadowdasher]

It's funny how the only time you hear about this is when democrats are in power and a bunch of redneck conservatives are whining. I honestly can't recall a blue area trying to brake off, but I might be wrong.

[Stormdash]

That is incorrect, because with a couple exceptions, States are not "members of a union" in the sense of the EU. They are partitions of the whole for ease of governance. Texas joined the union by treaty, and the original 13 formed the union. Only those states have the legal ability to dissolve their relationship with the Union. The rest of the states only exist because the Fed granted them sub-governance status, which, should they attempt to say "we're taking our toys and leaving", the Fed can simply rescind.

I suppose a state could be kicked out of the union, but that wouldn't make much sense.

Can't say it more plainly than that your interpretation is contrary to both the wording of the Constitution, the legislative/drafting history of it, and pretty much the entire body of American constitutional law. Even Texas v. White's dicta doesn't suggest such a radical inversion of federalism. And to be clear, there has never been any subsequent case by which to conclude that all that language about perpetual union is anything other than dicta. Perpetuity of the union was not the issue before the Court in White, the statements were not central to its holding; the language is dicta.

To refresh -- there is no federal government but by the consent of the states in ratifying its existence, and the states have formal, textual power by which to modify the Constitution without the federal government even having a say in the matter should they so choose (one of the several permutations of the amendment process in Article V). The United States refers to the union of those states -- as does the preamble to the Constitution explaining the goal of drafting it. The Articles of Confederation were replaced to solidify the function of a central government to protect all of their mutual interests; the Constitution was drafted or explained or ratified on the notion that the federal government was the new end-all, be-all of the citizens relationship with the state. "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." -- James Madison, Federalist 45. Special interest? The word "delegated" -- the federal government is like a trustee, it's an employee of the states, a creation of them. Even the supremacy clause doesn't upset that, because the federal government's supremacy was only ever anticipated to be over those powers that were "few and defined"... and it was all backstopped by the fact that the states could remove that federal government by subsequent amendments if they so required.

- - - Updated - - -

It's funny how the only time you hear about this is when democrats are in power and a bunch of redneck conservatives are whining. I honestly can't recall a blue area trying to brake off, but I might be wrong.

You must have taken most of the '00s off-grid, then, particularly the six months immediately following either Presidential election.

[Permatree]

state senators.

State Senate

http://senate.ca.gov/senators

Yeah I forgot to mention that I'm special