"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! ... Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" - Barry Goldwater
Friday, February 21, 2014
A report from ABC News says there's a proposal in California to split the state into six separate states. It recently got the green light from the state's Secretary of State.
Now, will it go anywhere? Probably not. But should it?
On the one hand, the idea of six Californias is scary. One is plenty bad enough. But six?
On the other hand, the thought of taking an axe to that state and cutting it into small pieces is attractive.
Okay, some of you may live in California, and not appreciate either sentiment. But really, it's your own fault for living there. There are 49 other states, some of them that actually don't suck, that you could live in. Or, you could stay there and actually do take it from the crazy liberals that are running the shoe. But, you've done neither. So, when people trash California, you gotta take some of the blame.
Anyway, breaking up California. Crazy idea?
It's been done before. Kind of. Maine was actually part of Massachusetts until 1820. Go look it up.
West Virginia was the part of Virginia that didn't secede during the War Between The States. It was given its own status as a state 1863.
So, yeah, breaking a state up has been done before. But still, should California be broken up? Or should other states be broken up?
I won't be broken up about it. What about you? What do you think?
Please choose a Profile in "Comment as" or sign your name to Anonymous comments. Comment policy
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Why not make it 7? Then Obama wouldn't look like a fool as much of a fool in the history books....assuming there are any.ReplyDelete
The names of the new states?
Newer New Mexico
The Gay State
Commonwealth of All Your Wealth
California metastasizing: bad.
Texas dividing and multiplying: good. In theory.
Name of one of the offshoots: Caliph Foreign Yeah.ReplyDelete
That's a lot more crazy senators, though.ReplyDelete
I'd prefer using the Bugs Bunny method.
It's entirely possible that some of the new states might turn out more politically balanced (or even conservative). That would mean there's not one bloc always going to the Democrats.ReplyDelete
Think about this, if most of the population felt they were being well represented by the state politicians, were would this movement come from?
This could be very good for conservatives AND (very importantly) it doesn't violate any constitutional principles I'm aware of.
California's thinking of going plural - from sick to sicks.ReplyDelete
Maybe they're hoping that with six you get agro.ReplyDelete
Their economic engine will have six Solyndras.ReplyDelete
(Everything you wanted to know about six, but were afraid to ask.)ReplyDelete
Wouldn't the number of representative in Congress go up, since the rule is 438 members in the House, unless a state is added and each state has to have a least one representative? But like Zaklog said @5, some of them would have to better.ReplyDelete
Just having the dikes fail and the water swallow Sacramento would be a good start.ReplyDelete
The state with Hollyweird and LA could be called Libtardia. The rest would probably lean conservative, and the northernmost would probably be captured by and added to Oregon.ReplyDelete
If half of them are whining liberal states, there could be a snivel war!ReplyDelete
i believe that you are mistaken. the number of congressmen is fixed at 435. the last time states were added they received a representative until the next reapportionment when the number returned to 435.
the non voting members are as follows:
Non-voting members of Congress
In addition to 435 voting members, the U.S. House features five non-voting seats. These seats are filled by representatives from the District of Columbia, as well as the U.S. territories of American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Each of these representatives, except Puerto Rico, serve as delegates in the House. The representative from Puerto Rico is officially a resident commissioner.
senators. california with 12 senators? the republic would not survive.ReplyDelete
as a former Commiefornia resident I think it's a great idea. This initiative comes up every now and then and basically it's all the sane, conservative factions of California trying to divest themselves of Los Angeles and the Bay Area. Even the San Fernando Valley, which is mostly conservative and generally elects conservatives to the state legislature and House of Representatives keeps trying to secede from Los Angeles County. Some of the most outspoken conservatives in the House are from California - Tom McClintock and Daryl Issa to name a few.ReplyDelete
Breaking up Commiefornia would generate 2 more liberal Senators, but it would likely also generate 8 more conservative ones. In the House...it's iffy. L.A. and the Bay area have a large chunk of the population....and of course it would make Texas and Florida's electoral votes more important in elections...
Like all giant Communist states, it's destined to break up sooner or later under the weight of its own regulations.
@5, If they realized that was going to happen, they'd just have a judge say the whole thing was unconstitutional and move on to the next chapter in Rules For Radicals.Democrats I'm guessing it's all about making it (further) impossible for anyone who isn't a party member to be elected.ReplyDelete
As long as all the liberals can be concentrated into one of the new states I would be for it. Otherwise, as others have pointed out, we would just be getting more liberal senators and congresspersons.ReplyDelete
As long as all the liberals can be concentrated into one of the new states and San Andreas Fault goes right down the middle, I would be for it.ReplyDelete
I've always said that Washington State should be broken into two - east and west.ReplyDelete
Mainly because I feel really bad for Eastern Washington, which is largely rural and conservative, because they keep getting f*cked over by Western Washington which is ultra liberal and lesbian, who makes up the voting majority. Decadent, elitist Seattlites eager to dig their own grave shouldn't be allowed to bring the more reasonable Spokaners down with them.
@14, JW, I stand corrected.ReplyDelete
@20: +1 and Bacon.ReplyDelete
@20 -- when that happens, can we throw in the part of Idaho in the Pacific Time Zone just for fun?ReplyDelete
California is already six different states in attitude if not in reality. The problem is that the big population centers of LA, SanD and Frisco pull it to the left. If you look at the high desert and places further inland the voting trend is more conservative. In fact one of the biggest complaints those areas have is that California is being governed for the Cites and coast at the expense of the rest of the population.ReplyDelete
Another plus to this breakup would be that the farming communites would more than likely be in a new state different from the one containing SanFran. Let's see if all those old hippies will refuse to buy produce once the farmers wate their fields at the expense of the 'endangered' two eyed red tailed blue guppy (or whatever they're protecting these days).
@2 California metastasizing
One way to combat this is to isolate the diseased cells. I think a new state border would do just fine.
Who gets to draw the new lines? I'm afraid they will divide it like a pizza with LA in the middle to make sure that each piece keeps a liberal majority.ReplyDelete
The Scotland question has to come up, too. Who is subsidizing all the welfare recipients? Hollywood, Silicon Valley, or the farmers? If we could somehow draw the lines so that the moochers have nobody to mooch off of, it could be the final nail in socialism's coffin.
How do you divide up the debt? Per person? Weighted by social spending? Divided according to how many state employees live in each new state?
I would object that if it was divided, then the federal government could legitimately fund high speed rail, since it would then be inter-state. That's kind of a moot point though, since they don't use the constitution to decide how they spend money.
I live here and I welcome it! Let the Frisco libs and the mexican socialists run their own little states into the ground. We can even build a wall around the Orange County Free State to keep them from sneaking in when they do collapse.ReplyDelete
FormerHostage is right on. I live in a more conservative part of the state (not the Georgia level of conservative but much more conservative than most of coasts) and we can't stand the lock the Liberals have on us politically. I would love to see this area become a separate state.ReplyDelete
There has long been similar talk in Western and Central New York State, where many would like to divest themselves of NYC.ReplyDelete
Can we just give California to someone elseReplyDelete
...And the number of the beast is six.ReplyDelete
Leave it to Mother Nature. It could be divided along existing fault lines making it an archipelago...hmmm, maybe with saltwater streets. Isn't there already a Venice, CA?ReplyDelete
@31 There is but it's not saltwater in those canals - it's mostly homeless hippie urine.ReplyDelete
I think we could figure out where to draw the lines......ReplyDelete
What are the rules on a part of a state succeeding in seceding but joining an already existing state? Could part of California, for example, ask to join Texas? Is there a consitutional issue if it's not a new state?ReplyDelete
Article IV, Section 3 states that "...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."
I spent 4 years out there.ReplyDelete
If you made separate states out of L.A. and the Bay area, then cut four more out of the rest of the state, you'd gain 2 liberal senators (in addition to the two current losers), and 8 of a more conservative stripe.
That's a deal I'd take. Especially since the most liberal sections are poised to fall into the Pacific.
Breaking up California would also greatly diminish the power of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, so count that in the "Pro" column.ReplyDelete
1) the logo of the movement is a map of the proposed divisions - www.sixcalifornias.infoReplyDelete
2) like #20 & #28, i agree in general with movements that seek freedom from shoddy governance. elsewhere, it would make a lot of sense for the rest of illinois to secede from chicago. having texas secede from the south austin and san antonio liberal bastions would be geographically awkward though.
3) #36, #37: spot on.
3) #11: i thought all the dikes were in san fran? ;)
It doesn't matter to me. They would continue to move to my state (because they ruined their own), turn it blue, and move somewhere else once they've elected morons and destroyed everything here.ReplyDelete
Anyway, I would name the six states:
5. West Moonbeam
Everyone panicking that dividing California up into six states would give them 12 liberal senators should know that part of the idea behind splitting the state up is so that the hard-working, conservative northern Californians can dump the crazy liberal southern Californians (and make them take their broken illegal-supporting economy with them). Without actually looking at the proposed divisions and comparing them to county-level voting, I'd assume that there's a chance to actually gain Republican senators.ReplyDelete
Depends, if each state gets two senators, can this be gerrymandered into a net positive?ReplyDelete
Alternatively, we can keep conservative northern California, and give Southern California to Mexico.