difference between secession from the Union and secession from a state, the former has no precedents, the latter does, though I dont pretend to know the procedure behind it

Secession from a state ALSO ahsn't happened in over 100 years.

It's NOT happening.

It's a clear attempt to gerrymander a state.

There is NO WAY Congress would ever allow that.

"difference between secession from the Union and secession from a state, the former has no precedents, the latter does,"

West Virginia & Kentucky seceded from Virginia. Vermont seceded from New York. Maine seceded from Mass.

ALL of those, again...100+ YEARS AGO.

Which I said above.

Not happening...

It wouldn't be secession. The state could subdivide, BUT Congress would have to approve it. West Virginia did it during the War of Northern Aggression, so there is precedent. The only state that doesn't need Congressional approval to subdivide is TX. It can subdivide into up to 5 states w/out Congressional approval.

A side comment on the article, TX is the 2nd largest state. AK is the largest. That would make S.CA the 3rd largest IF it were allowed to separate.

"War of Northern Aggression"

someone is trying to lead us down a familiar road

Besides which...

I'd argue the USA doesn't want a 51st state, that politically, we're pretty happy with 50.

It's pretty balanaced, at least in theory (not always the cae, yeah, but still.)

The Notth/Pacific Coast is largely Blue, and the South and Midwest is largely Red.

There are the Colorados and Iowas and Ohios and Floridas that can go either way.

50x2=100 Senators, what's more cleancut than that?



If we'd WANTED a 51st state...we'd have had one by now, a plan like this or Peurto Rico would've already become that state.

It's NOT happening.

USA=50 stars forever.

And it will especially never happen for the assinine reason this fellow suggests *note to self--never vote for this moron ever for any office ever under any circumstances ever.*

@Santa
Civil War implies that the South wanted to overthrow the Northern government. In fact, the South was fine with the Northern government ruling the North. They just didn't want it ruling them.

I wouldn't take something proposed by someone on the Riverside County Board of Supervisors too seriously. Calm down.

@obi
The same was said when we had 48 stars.

"I'd argue the USA doesn't want a 51st state, that politically, we're pretty happy with 50."

Better tell those folks in the Caribbean

"It's pretty balanaced, at least in theory (not always the cae, yeah, but still.) "

Not a consideration, the union has been expanded to some pretty funky numbers

"The Notth/Pacific Coast is largely Blue, and the South and Midwest is largely Red."

If you had taken my class youd know that these things tend to change

"If we'd WANTED a 51st state...we'd have had one by now, a plan like this or Peurto Rico would've already become that state."

I believe it hinges on a Puerto Rican vote first


Looking back over this, was this a joke?

Czech, not getting into it again

@Czech:

First, aren't you busy in a game I jsut got killed out of? ;)

And again, those examples are from--lest this not be made clear once more--100 YEARS AGO.

The US in 1860 is so drastically different from the US in 2011 it's almost beyond words.

That would NEVER happen today.

(And as a side note...yeah, what's with the "War of Northern Agression" mention? I mean, I know that's technically a term for it, but come on, what's wrong with "Civil War?" ...Come to think of it So. California just east of LA County DID want to secede from the Union in the Civil War, until LA and SF troops came in and kept California whole...wonderful, we still have ghosts of the Civil War 150+ years after it ended.

GET OVER IT!

YOU LOST, SO. CAL!

THE SOUTH--OF CALIFORNIA EAST OF LA--SHALL NOT RISE AGAIN!)

:p

I mean, I know that's technically a term for it, but come on, what's wrong with "Civil War?"

Really?! The implication is much different. Read the Federalist papers. The people who wrote them believed in secession. In the US, there is NOTHING that is done legally that can't be undone legally EXCEPT joining the union. Name one other contract/partnership that can be entered into legally that can't be undone legally.

@Czech:

I'm NOT calling it "War of Northern Agression," sorry, I seem to recall it was the South that left when they threw a hissy fit over not getting the President they wanted and over social and economic policy not going their way...if that happened today the nation would fracture and secede every time we had a presidential election...oh, and WHO fired the first shots at Sumter?

Just saying...

You sign on to stay, you STAY.

Forget the newly-added "under God" part, but....

One Nation,
Indivisible,
With Liberty And Justice for All (except, you know, the homosexuals and homeless and poor and those poorly educated...and immigrants...and Muslims...but, yeah, for ALL!)

;)

"Read the Federalist papers. The people who wrote them believed in secession. In the US, there is NOTHING that is done legally that can't be undone legally EXCEPT joining the union."

Do you spot the contradiction there?

CELARLY they DIDN'T want the states to secede and the nation to fall apart if the one thing you're NOT allowed to dissolve is the Union itself.

(Again--HOW are you commenting on this in between the game?! What power are you in there?!)

actually it has complete merit. 2 senators represent 40 million people in California. While 2 senators represent 1 million people in Alaska. Which one is easier to represent?

halving the population of the largest state will give the state more representation and make it easier for state management.

The Economist proposed this in a 15 page special report on the Californian Economy. And a main reason for its failure was it is to big to stand, so should be split.

Again obi, the people who wrote the Constitution believed you could leave. The states voluntarily gave up their sovereignty and through the political process voted to take it back from the union. At that point, Ft Sumter became part of the state and no longer the union.

what Obi means to say is that this will never happen because it will never be politically expedient. All former splitting of states occurred either before the emergence of a strong party system (VT, KY,TN *think that counts if KY does) as part of a national compromise (ME) or as a result of conflict (WV). Barring a new era of Good Feelings or a Civil War, I wouldn't plan for a new state due to secession.

IDK, the venom between Dems and Reps is so strong, I could see it happening in my lifetime.

This is a non-story, obiwanobiwan. One country supervisor said this. Nevada and Utah can't even agree on transferring one shitty town to the other side of their border so it's in the same state as the neighboring town its economically fused with. I've forgotten the details but they're easily found online. If the slight adjustment of a border where most everyone agrees its a good idea ain't happening you can bet your first born that this plan will go nowhere.

Put your outrage someplace else.

""Read the Federalist papers. The people who wrote them believed in secession. In the US, there is NOTHING that is done legally that can't be undone legally EXCEPT joining the union.""

That makes little sense. There would have been no need for the federalist papers if people honestly believed they could leave the union any time they felt like it. Why the heated debate? There would have nothing to fear from a national government with an executive if they all believed in secession.

Plus the Articles of Confederation (a much more extreme confederal arrangement that the Constitution) was called the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.

Maybe your dictionary has a different meaning for "perpetual".

Party pooper. Couldn't you tell there was a goat involved in this discussion.

"Again obi, the people who wrote the Constitution believed you could leave. The states voluntarily gave up their sovereignty and through the political process voted to take it back from the union. At that point, Ft Sumter became part of the state and no longer the union."

blah blah blah, wrong, the constitution is not a covenant of the states but a covenant of the people, who are the true constituents of the united states of America. This is why when early secession movements presented themselves they were snuffed out in NY, PA, New England, South Carolina, and I believe one in Rhode Island as well (Doorites i believe). It was established that states could not secede from the Union, as a result of the nullification crises of Jackson's era. Despite this fact the South attacked Federal Interests and attempted to secede from the Union. The Federal, as all precedents instructed it, sought to re-establish the Union

@Putin
The South was so scared of the union is the exact reason the Federalist papers were written.

States do not have a right to secede unilaterally. Texas v. White. Case closed.

Vermont didn't really secede from New York...it has a pretty strange history, including being its own independent Republic briefly (if somewhat accidentally). But yes, there is precedent, most notably West Virginia.

you win Czech you win

+1 Santa (did I just type that?)

Unless, by some HUGE happenstance, we DO have a second civil war--and to have what is still one of the largest and comparatively-well-off nations in the world have a full-blown civil war with soldiers and tanks and everything would take something so huge I can't even think of it, I don't think ANY political issue fathomable could do that--we're not going to see another case like West Virginia, which is what this is.

Again, "South California" HAD it's chance to become a state.

Unlike West Virginia, however, it was beaten in battle.

It's not going to become a state unless there's a Civil War.