Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Colorado may split?

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Nebraska counties considering joining the new state


The energy and agriculture bills, combined with recent controversial gun-control laws, have sparked enough tension to make the proposition of a new state a topic of serious discussion among commissioners. CBS Denver reported that even southwest portions of Nebraska are considering joining the discontented counties.

Link



There have been five successful separations of territory through the constitutional process since the Founding, creating the states of Vermont, Kentucky, Tennessee, Maine, and West Virginia. All efforts since 1863 have proved unsuccessful. “North Colorado,” should it materialize as the 51st state, would be least populous state and the 42nd largest by area, according to the Greeley Tribune.
edit on 10-6-2013 by tinker9917 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 06:35 PM
link   


This movement is early on in its stages. The first step in the process will be a ballot question presented to the voters in each county - this will happen this fall. The second step will be to seek approval from the state legislature and Governor to refer it to the US Congress. The third step will be to seek approval from the US Congress.




The Weld BOCC has been receiving emails and calls from other counties in Colorado that want to join along with counties from adjacent states.


Lots of links and support on their Facebook page
Facebook Page
edit on 10-6-2013 by tinker9917 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastStarfighter
I wouldn't worry about. In the 1860's I think they settled whether or not you can leave the union.


Hypothetically, they are not proposing seceding from the Union, they are contemplating breaking off from the State of Colorado (which would form a new State; if they get approval from the State Legislature, Congress and the other States to be admitted into the Union).

New York kicked the idea around. California has also done the same; to this, this is the most obvious state in the union that would make sense given its large geographic footprint (along with clearly divided political lines).



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by tinker9917
 


Facebook support doesn't equate to actual support though. It is easy to say you support it but when it comes time to be in the "trenches" so to speak, I would guess a large portion of those "supporters" would be absent.



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Well, if it happens it will be good for flag sales anyway. Just think of how many many new flags will have to be purchased....probably from India



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by tinker9917
 


Facebook support doesn't equate to actual support though. It is easy to say you support it but when it comes time to be in the "trenches" so to speak, I would guess a large portion of those "supporters" would be absent.


I guess I should've said "support from the local population"



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 




Looks fairly anti-democratic to me - not willing to live with the consequences of not being able to control the Govt. when they are not the majority?


The democratic system is supposed to invoke compromise, that is, the "winners" are supposed to respect and work around the views and perceived needs of the "losers". That form of statesmanship has been all but lost along the way. It is the right of the governed to reject a governance that does not suit them.

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
--Thomas Jefferson --

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
--Thomas Jefferson --

Read more at www.brainyquote.com...



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by LifeIsPeculiar


Looks fairly anti-democratic to me - not willing to live with the consequences of not being able to control the Govt. when they are not the majority?


The democratic system is supposed to invoke compromise, that is, the "winners" are supposed to respect and work around the views and perceived needs of the "losers". That form of statesmanship has been all but lost along the way. It is the right of the governed to reject a governance that does not suit them.


The Republican (not the party, the system) way was this; not the democratic way. Democracy was disseminated and dispursed as widely as possible for a reason in the newly formed United States of America.

Federalist Paper #14 (on the explanation of a democracy and a republic):

It is, that in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region."

Consider further, in Federalist #10:

From this view of the subject...a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.



To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
--Thomas Jefferson --


Jefferson was a hack. Smart, but a hack,
edit on 10-6-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Imightknow
I'm guessing not likely, but 8 counties in Northern Colorado want to secede from the state and form their own state of Northern Colorado.

www.csmonitor.com...


This hasn't been done since 1863 when West Virginia became a state after breaking off Virginia, but it can be done. Must be approved by the Colorado Legislature as well as US Congress, which I don't see happening.


While technically true, there was planned secession of Northern California and Southern Oregon to create a state known as Jefferson. The announcement of the move was set to be made on Devember 8th, 1941. Unfortunately for the secessionist movement, this was the day after Pearl Harbor. The rest as they say , is history. Just thought i would throw it out there.






top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join