The Great State of South California

[CaptainChewbacca]

Would you like to know more?

A new push to divide the Golden State in two could make Southern California the 51st state.

"Our state legislature that is supposed to be making laws and being respected, imposes laws that aren't even lawful," Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone told Los Angeles ABC station KABC-TV. "So I think our state is California gone wild."

Stone is proposing that 13 Southern California counties secede from the state, dividing California into a north and south region.

Stone's proposal came on Thursday just hours after California Gov. Jerry Brown signed the state's new budget legislation, passed by the Democratic majority, which will divert millions of dollars away from county and city agencies.

"With this budget, you will see cities and counties on the brink of bankruptcy," Stone told the Press-Enterprise of Riverside.

"Local jurisdiction, particularly those in Southern California, have been at the mercy of the state legislature for well over a decade," Stone's chief of staff, Verne Lauritzen, told ABCNews.com. "The state has been unable and incompetent in producing a budget that is not only balanced but appropriate to local governments."

One of the elements of the budget that has particularly angered Stone is a trailer, SV89, which says that any city in the state incorporated after 2004 must forfeit funding from the vehicle licensing fee.

"This bill unfairly targets only four cities, all of which are in Riverside County," Lauritzen said. "All of them have been incorporated since 2004. One of them was just incorporated yesterday, Jurupa Valley. This bill creates a $6.2 million takeaway from that city, which has an approximate budget of $22 million. They'll have to forfeit nearly 30 percent of that. That is catastrophic."

Danita Delimont/Gallo Images/Getty Images
The Bear Flag is the official flag of the state of California."Let's have a state that was the Golden State two decades ago," Stone said. "That welcomes businesses to the state, that allows capitalism to prevail."

The succession plan also calls for a shift of the balance of power to local governments. But some local leaders say it will be impossible for South California to function on its own.

More at the link. I have to say, I find this slightly alarming because if it happens, I'd suddenly end up living in a different state than the rest of my family.

[SirNitram]

Unconstitutional. Article 4, Section 3.

[Rogue 9]

Unconstitutional. Article 4, Section 3.

Unless, of course, they can get the California legislature and Congress to agree to it.

[SirNitram]

Unconstitutional. Article 4, Section 3.

Unless, of course, they can get the California legislature and Congress to agree to it.

A President signing off on splitting a state will need major cover. I'm not gonna say it's impossible, but there will be chunks against it.

[Cecelia5578]

Unconstitutional. Article 4, Section 3.

Unless, of course, they can get the California legislature and Congress to agree to it.

A President signing off on splitting a state will need major cover. I'm not gonna say it's impossible, but there will be chunks against it.

I think we keep having this same argument every time this comes up. Not unconstitutional, but probably too hard to realistically do in our sclerotic political system.

Anyways, California is really too big, and probably should be at least two separate states in any remotely functional political system. Living in the Bay Area, I'd love to live in what I'd presume would be a much more progressive state without crazy as fuck OC Republicans.

More at the link. I have to say, I find this slightly alarming because if it happens, I'd suddenly end up living in a different state than the rest of my family.

So? You still live in the same country. Its not like you'll need a passport to visit.

[LadyTevar]

Unconstitutional. Article 4, Section 3.

Unless, of course, they can get the California legislature and Congress to agree to it.

A President signing off on splitting a state will need major cover. I'm not gonna say it's impossible, but there will be chunks against it.

It worked for West Virginia.

Of course it was the middle of a War, and Lincoln convinced his Cabinet than a new Union State would be a boon.

[Sea Skimmer]

Yes and West Virginia sure did turn out great. Splitting California is probably not the worst idea ever, but it will never happen, or at least not until the US undergoes some very wide ranging social changes which may or may not happen in the next two or three decades. Far too many special interests would bitterly opposed breakup such a large economic rump into two parts which can then pass twice as many new regulations. Certainly other special interests would favor it but I'm betting the money is on the side of one piece.

[Simon_Jester]

Yes and West Virginia sure did turn out great. Splitting California is probably not the worst idea ever, but it will never happen, or at least not until the US undergoes some very wide ranging social changes which may or may not happen in the next two or three decades. Far too many special interests would bitterly opposed breakup such a large economic rump into two parts which can then pass twice as many new regulations. Certainly other special interests would favor it but I'm betting the money is on the side of one piece.

Could you expand on those "social changes," if you don't mind?

[Cecelia5578]

Yes and West Virginia sure did turn out great. Splitting California is probably not the worst idea ever, but it will never happen, or at least not until the US undergoes some very wide ranging social changes which may or may not happen in the next two or three decades. Far too many special interests would bitterly opposed breakup such a large economic rump into two parts which can then pass twice as many new regulations. Certainly other special interests would favor it but I'm betting the money is on the side of one piece.

Could you expand on those "social changes," if you don't mind?

My guess (since this is SDN) is that its some combo of anarchism, civil war, insurrection, massive societal breakdown from AGW/peak oil, etc.

[SirNitram]

Not unconstitutional, but probably too hard to realistically do in our sclerotic political system.

It is unconstitutional, no matter how much one protests. From Article 4, Section 3, which anyone with google can find in seconds:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but 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.

There's literally no argument on that to be made. I didn't refer to Article and Section for kicks.

[Soontir C'boath]

What about this part then?

without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

[Zaune]

My guess (since this is SDN) is that its some combo of anarchism, civil war, insurrection, massive societal breakdown from AGW/peak oil, etc.

Personally, I got the impression he was suggesting that there needed to be a general acknowledgement that the US constitution is not perfect, and that amending or otherwise modifying it should not be as momentus an undertaking as it currently is.

Admittedly all of the above are probably prerequisites for the cultural shift needed to reach that acknowledgement.

[Sea Skimmer]

My guess (since this is SDN) is that its some combo of anarchism, civil war, insurrection, massive societal breakdown from AGW/peak oil, etc.

Something like that. The US faces a great range of problems in the future from debt to water shortages. Many of these problems may be mitigated or simply never come to pass, but the potential exists for some very serious problem to get very bad and mainly because our political system and population all wish to insist that the sky is not falling, its soaring ever higher, rather then take even basic corrective action. If nothing serious changes I cannot see splitting a state gaining even slight ground; on the other hand if a whole slew of possible problems come to pass then I wouldn't rule anything. Like I love to mention, the US had has open warfare with artillery and machine guns with in the last 100 years just over labor disputes. Nothing is innately stable about the US system as successful as it has been and as not riot friendly as we are compared to say, Europe.

[Zaune]

Like I love to mention, the US had has open warfare with artillery and machine guns with in the last 100 years just over labor disputes.

You are referring to the Civil War, right?

[SirNitram]

What about this part then?

without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Pay attention to the punctuation. Semicolons generally break things apart by clauses. Therefore, a strict reading suggests that the consent is part of breaking bits off of states and sticking them together, not slicing a single state into parts.

[Sea Skimmer]

You are referring to the Civil War, right?

No I’m referring to the mine wars of the early 1920s, following on a series of mine wars before WW1, which were ultimately crushed, after thousands of goons hired by the mine owners were driven back, by the mobilization of federal troops and federal air power went after the miners on the basis that they were blocking the rail roads and threatening to blackout a good portion of the US eastern seaboard, including a dead serious threat by Billy Mitchell to use poison gas bombs against the striker army. As it turned out the Army bombers only few reconnaissance missions which sufficed to help disperse many of the miners troops before federal ground troops were fully engaged. The miners called off the whole thing at the last second before thousands died, but among the thousands of weapons captured by army troops were machine guns and modern field guns. Hundreds of people were killed and wounded in the fighting overall.

Pay attention to the punctuation. Semicolons generally break things apart by clauses. Therefore, a strict reading suggests that the consent is part of breaking bits off of states and sticking them together, not slicing a single state into parts.

And since the US congress already approved splitting a state in half without even the consent of the state legislature, that strict reading is already proven irrelevant.

[Simon_Jester]

Not unconstitutional, but probably too hard to realistically do in our sclerotic political system.

It is unconstitutional, no matter how much one protests. From Article 4, Section 3, which anyone with google can find in seconds:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but 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.

There's literally no argument on that to be made. I didn't refer to Article and Section for kicks.

Nitram, I think Cecelia's point is more that it is possible to split a state by constitutional means (get approval of the California legislature, get the approval of Congress). There's just no way that's actually going to happen.

Pay attention to the punctuation. Semicolons generally break things apart by clauses. Therefore, a strict reading suggests that the consent is part of breaking bits off of states and sticking them together, not slicing a single state into parts.

And since the US congress already approved splitting a state in half without even the consent of the state legislature, that strict reading is already proven irrelevant.

An attempt to apply the precedent would run into two huge obstacles. One, passages from the Constitution are not made moot by someone managing to get away with violating them, so protests against the act of splitting a state would still be have substance in the federal courts. Two, that was during the Civil War; the circumstances don't even come close to matching the precedent.

[SirNitram]

Not unconstitutional, but probably too hard to realistically do in our sclerotic political system.

It is unconstitutional, no matter how much one protests. From Article 4, Section 3, which anyone with google can find in seconds:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but 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.

There's literally no argument on that to be made. I didn't refer to Article and Section for kicks.

Nitram, I think Cecelia's point is more that it is possible to split a state by constitutional means (get approval of the California legislature, get the approval of Congress). There's just no way that's actually going to happen.

Quite. Earlier in the conversation I noted it would require alot of people coming to this way of thinking, and something big enough to give cover.

[Darth Fanboy]

I love it how Riverside wants to speak on behalf of the rest of Southern California, seriously, fuck Riverside.

This is just another example of the headline trumping the content. Riverside doesn't mean jack shit, I doubt you will see San Diego, Orange, and LA Counties going along with this, which is what would have to happen for this to be even remotely feasible.

[kaeneth]

I love it how Riverside wants to speak on behalf of the rest of Southern California, seriously, fuck Riverside.

This is just another example of the headline trumping the content. Riverside doesn't mean jack shit, I doubt you will see San Diego, Orange, and LA Counties going along with this, which is what would have to happen for this to be even remotely feasible.

Which is precisely why Riverside got screwed. The problem is, the more you screw someone out of their fair share the angrier they get. And lets be honest...

One of the elements of the budget that has particularly angered Stone is a trailer, SV89, which says that any city in the state incorporated after 2004 must forfeit funding from the vehicle licensing fee.

That is screwing people out of their fair share. Instead of raising taxes and balancing the budget like sane people they rob Peter to pay Paul. I highly suspect they are running out of Peters to rob.

[Questor]

That is screwing people out of their fair share. Instead of raising taxes and balancing the budget like sane people they rob Peter to pay Paul. I highly suspect they are running out of Peters to rob.

Please educate yourself.

Guess who prevented the tax increases from even being voted on?

[Cecelia5578]

What about this part then?

without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Pay attention to the punctuation. Semicolons generally break things apart by clauses. Therefore, a strict reading suggests that the consent is part of breaking bits off of states and sticking them together, not slicing a single state into parts.

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but 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.

Then what does the italicized portion refer to then? I still think you're talking out of you ass about the constitutionality of creating a new state; by your logic, was the creation of Maine out of Massachusetts illegal and unconstitutional?

[Darth Fanboy]

Which is precisely why Riverside got screwed. The problem is, the more you screw someone out of their fair share the angrier they get. And lets be honest...

Riverside in terms of population is insignificant compared to the counties I listed. Not that they don't deserve their fair share but my ridicule is reserved for anyone stupid enough to think that Riverside's political discontent translates into the splitting of California.

[kaeneth]

Which is precisely why Riverside got screwed. The problem is, the more you screw someone out of their fair share the angrier they get. And lets be honest...

Riverside in terms of population is insignificant compared to the counties I listed. Not that they don't deserve their fair share but my ridicule is reserved for anyone stupid enough to think that Riverside's political discontent translates into the splitting of California.

I never said it will split California. I'm just saying they got screwed.

That is screwing people out of their fair share. Instead of raising taxes and balancing the budget like sane people they rob Peter to pay Paul. I highly suspect they are running out of Peters to rob.

Please educate yourself.

Guess who prevented the tax increases from even being voted on?

Evidence that Riverside county and/or the cities there prevented it?

[Darth Fanboy]

I never said it will split California. I'm just saying they got screwed.

Aaaaaaaaaaand you continue to miss the point.