A Simple Question For Californians

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: NthOther
Why would California be allowed to secede and/or split? No one else was ever allowed.

They're permitted to if 3/4s of the other states vote 'yes' on the proposal, it's in the Constitution.

Where in the constitution is that?

originally posted by: tinymind
I was just watching a short video at :
California Split

And a question crossed my mind.

What do you do if the two "new states" are not admitted to the union? And how long can you hold out until it is admitted?

Just because a state decides to become two or three separate states does not automatically put more stars on the flag. Plus there will be a lot of new bureaucratic stuff to be taken care of for the recognition of these "new citizens" of these "new states". You would think a lot of this stuff would come about by the simple flip of a switch, but I will bet you a good payday it will not be quite so simple.

This could be something to think about.

Lol "A simple question?". It doesn't seem simple to me at all.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

Where in the constitution is that?

Article IV, Section 3, Clause I.

Check that, it's actually a simple majority.

I think this is the current split

a reply to: Bigburgh

Nope, focal is largely conservative.

The Senate would be a wash although possibly not, there are areas of Northern California that are conservative as well in the rural areas. So worst case scenario you get to conservative senators and SoCal and 4 in West Cal and Nor Cal. But the biggest difference will be the Electoral College. That's because with the state split up you'll you'll be at the possibility of the areas that are conservative mainly SoCal voting conservative and you'll at least get those 15 or maybe 20 electoral votes that you're losing now with 55 votes always going Progressive.

Jaden

a reply to: NthOther

This is not an initiative to secede. This is an initiative two separate California into three separate states. There is absolute precedence for this with Virginia and West Virginia.

Jaden

There is absolute precedence for this with Virginia and West Virginia.

Misread the post. Question no needed.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: NthOther

This is not an initiative to secede. This is an initiative two separate California into three separate states. There is absolute precedence for this with Virginia and West Virginia.

Not quite. In fact, it was a unique situation. The South seceded, so Lincoln sent in the troops, saying to secede was illegal. But then West Virginia seceded not from the United States, but from Virginia, which was part of the CSA, to join the USA, with Lincoln's approval, so it was okay from West Virginia to secede from the CSA but not okay for Virginia to secede from the USA. So, in fact, no state has ever successfully seceded from the USA (for any length of time.) However, new states have been formed out of existing states, including Kentucky from Virginia, Tennessee from North Carolina, Maine from Massachusetts, and Vermont from New York.

a reply to: watchitburn

What if one of the new States decides they want to have a socialist or communist govt.

Well then I propose California becomes a new country instead.

...one I would live in.

i would be surprised if this actually passes. People seem to flow along with what is current. I will admit I don't have a California state of mind.

Hopefully some one there who is researching this will give us some feed back on what people are thinking.

a reply to: tinymind

We don't need to be split in 3 we just need to get Democrats and their socialist agenda out of government,most of this hpye is the same sh** I have to listen to constantly,on any radio,errant TV set,the word of the liberals,not the majority of taxpayers

Sorry for my lack of knowledge.... what is driving the push to split the state? Is it purely politics?

they are being really sneaky about the way they want it split up. they have one of the big cities in each new state, which they would use to take control via population size. if we want to be fair the only way it should be done is that the "new" state of California includes all 3 big cities of LA, San Diego, and San Francisco. since that seems to follow how people actually voted last election. where most of the "new" states of Northern California, and Southern California voted for Trump and the smaller portion of California which comprises most of "new California" as outlined plus the two cities of San Francisco and San Diego voted for Hillary, which due to their populations turned the state votes for Hillary. at least dividing on those lines, which in effect is not all that much different than the proposed lines (just including two more cities) , would give the rest of currant California a much fairer political representation. since they would not be overruled just because the cities have an overwhelming population used to crush the wants and needs of everyone else.

originally posted by: Starcrossd
Sorry for my lack of knowledge.... what is driving the push to split the state? Is it purely politics?

it's about giving themselves 3 times their senate representatives to give them more political power. currently California has 2 senators. by breaking up into three states they would have 2 senators in each state. giving California 6 senators instead of the 2 they currently have. and the division lines in the proposed split up insure that each "new state" of California includes one of the 3 main cities which just as California does now, the sheer population size of those cities control the politics even though most of the rest of California votes opposite of who they vote for in the cities. really it can be looked at as yet another attempt to put more democrats into power so they can have more control, without more people voting for them. the same would be true for Presidential elections. this split up using their proposed lines again would give California about three times the voting power to elect a President as they have now.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

Where in the constitution is that?

Article IV, Section 3, Clause I.

Check that, it's actually a simple majority.

Interesting, thanks.

originally posted by: roadgravel
I think this is the current split

From the appearance of the lines drawn on the map, I would guess the federal government would prefer to recognize what is being called "Northern California" as the State of California should any splitting take place. This would be because of the capitol of Sacramento having already been established as the seat of government. The other two portions would then have to establish their own capitals and all the needed governmental infrastructure before applying for statehood. This would leave them pretty much on the own for a period of time until their applications were voted on and approved by congress and the legislatures of the existing states. These "new states" would not be states but simply territories which seek to join the union. They would have to be self-sustaining for a period of time which could stretch into years.
Now, the big question comes in as to just what happens to the people who live in these areas which are not yet states if there is not enough votes for their approval to join the union ??
I would suppose the federal government "could" feel sorry enough for these people to declare these "new states" protected territories and help provide for their welfare but this would not be guaranteed.
Or they could ask Mexico to take them in as new parts of their country, which may be an underlying part of this whole strategy from the beginning. There has been a lot of talk over the past several years of these lands being reclaimed as part of Mexico.

I started out with one fairly simple question, but now I have begun to realize just what a messy ball of wax this could turn out to be.

a reply to: watchitburn

What if one of the new States decides they want to have a socialist or communist govt. Would they even be allowed to enter the US as a State?

What the constitution says:

Section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.