Discussion in 'Politics and Current Events' started by The_Major, Jun 13, 2018.
Malcolm gladwell has an interesting podcast on Texas dividing into 5 states.
Like all these red states are going to allow a couple more Dem Senate seats.
Interesting, but stupid, idea that Congress will never approve.
What a novel concept. Or not.
"The history of California, admitted to the Union on Sept. 9, 1850, has been marked by more than 200 attempts to either reconfigure its boundaries, split it into pieces or even have the state secede and become an independent country. The last three-state proposal, crafted by a Butte County legislator, failed in the state Capitol in 1993."
I want it to go all the way because I want to watch the chaos unfold
Texas has a similar annexation deal. I think we get 5 states, which will never happen.
People are bored. Need to get real hobbies like message boards.
Which party do you think would object the most? At first glance I thought the pubs but after some thought I'm not so sure. It's not like the pubs have much to lose in CA as it is.
Pubs wouldn’t want an extra 4 dem senators.
you think all 3 states would be dems?
I think there is a higher probability that they would all be blue and from time to time a pub may win a senate seat in one of them.
SoCal would be competitive at least. Orange and San Diego counties have lots of conservatives.
I figured the states weren't designed by dummies.
If the the split created one reliably red state and two reliably blue states then the split could gain traction in Congress.
What guarantees all the new states would be admitted to the union?
Nothing. Congress would have to decide per Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution.
The question was rhetorical but thank your wife for me, for providing the answer.
Actually, thank google. I don’t ask her for advise when posting to this board because she doesn’t approve of me conversing with a bunch of asshats.
It would actually be easier than some think. Legally, all that would have to happen is for the California state legislature to approve it, and Congress to vote for admission for the new state(s). In practice, however, it's not likely to happen because neither party in Congress is going to stand for allowing new senators from the opposing party.
A question, though. Suppose either party has control of Congress and at least 60 senators. What is to stop them from working with some of the states to subdivide them and pack the Senate? It's not that far-fetched. Suppose when the Dems had 60 senators a few years ago, and they had decided to split the Northeastern states into four different states each, to allow for 10 more Dem senators?
Seems like it could happen.
Last year the Chicago Tribune talked about splitting the state of Illinois among the four surrounding states of Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana and Missouri. It was comical.
Make Chicago a city state and let the rest go.
I like the option where CA becomes a separate country.
Think they would have a open border policy?
Pubs would love that.
The rest of IL. would too.
Pretty sure the middle state would be relatively reliably Republican. That breadbasket part is in a lot of ways similar to rural Texas.
Great idea. Gerrymandering taken to a whole new level!
Texas does have the right to divide into as many as 5 different states going all the way back to the treaty that was signed between Texas and the US in which Texas agreed to become a state. Other states would have to get it approved by congress if they wanted to break apart.
Hypothetically speaking, which state would JG be in?
I wonder why we don’t split. I’m guessing it would just cost to much.
It would be nice to have 8 more senators.
Some of those states would be Dem and plus it would dilute the power of the republican part of the state by lowering the number of representatives.
That right went away with the Compromise of 1850, which set the boundary as it exists today. Congress would have to approve any split.
Technically, Texas can't divide itself into 5 states, but what it can do is "spawn" 4 new states with the remainder being Texas, so in essence it would create 5 states out of what is now 1.
Because of the Compromise of 1850, it would still require Congressional approval.
So with that, it's really no different from any other state.
No article I've read says that Texas needs congressional approval to break into 5 states. If you find such article post it so I can study it. Don't just state "Compromise of 1850 means it would require congressional approval"
Must be frustrating to travel all over the place, and never leave the same state.
The Compromise of 1850 reads:
"nothing herein contained shall be construed to impair or qualify any thing contained in the third article of the second section of the "joint resolution for annexing Texas to the United States", approved March 1, 1845, either regards the number of States that may be hereafter formed out of Texas, or otherwise".
The joint resolution they speak of has this language:
"New states, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution."
(8 commas in the same sentence? wow)
So the annexation agreement says four more states can be formed out of Texas. However, it does spell out that they are entitled admission "under the provisions of the federal constitution". Which means consent of Congress.
So in reality, despite that agreement, new states formed out of Texas would require Congressional approval, and thus we aren't any different from other states. The same rules apply to them.
This is all a waste of time from a rich guy who also likes Bitcoin.
Separate names with a comma.