Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rolan7]

I'd have to review my standards of law, but I'm pretty sure that only the federal government can make decisions regarding what land is occupied by what state, so I'm not sure what that's supposed to accomplish?

I have literally no idea how it actually happened, but the main precedent I can think of would be West Virginia splitting from Virginia?  Except that took place around, and largely due to, the Civil War...
IIRC some of the original colonies theoretically extended "all the way west", which (spoilers) changed at some point.  Something something federally managed territories, which were gradually granted statehood.

My guess would be that states are free to release land into a new territory, which the federal government could then consider offering statehood to.

[MrRoboto75]

Maryland already looks like its taking land from like five other states.

[smjjames]

Well, Texas is a bit special because they were a sovereign nation for a brief time.

I'd have to review my standards of law, but I'm pretty sure that only the federal government can make decisions regarding what land is occupied by what state, so I'm not sure what that's supposed to accomplish?

You're correct on that as the California legislature would still have to okay it and THEN it has to be okay'd by Congress (not sure if both chambers or just Senate). So, it's not an automatic thing. Also, that'd be a good point as far as what the new state(s) would look like. Sure, the proposal would be a guideline of sorts, but Congress gets the final say.

I'd have to review my standards of law, but I'm pretty sure that only the federal government can make decisions regarding what land is occupied by what state, so I'm not sure what that's supposed to accomplish?

I have literally no idea how it actually happened, but the main precedent I can think of would be West Virginia splitting from Virginia?  Except that took place around, and largely due to, the Civil War...
IIRC some of the original colonies theoretically extended "all the way west", which (spoilers) changed at some point.  Something something federally managed territories, which were gradually granted statehood.

My guess would be that states are free to release land into a new territory, which the federal government could then consider offering statehood to.

Threres several cases of larger territories being split up or states being split off from territories. Not a perfect precedent, but it's there.

Anyways, I saw in the comments on TheHill article that there are rumors about the guy behind that ballot measure having Russian connections of some sort or other, which if accurate, is a big NOPE.

Constitutional quote:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State 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.

So, Congress have to approve.

So, both chambers of Congress? That'd be a massive lift and I hope that Californians at least get to decide HOW it's split up.

[Egan_BW]

However, as things stand as far as third parties making any headway in this political system, they'd have to do what Trump did, wear the jersey (or skin if you want to get macabre) of either major party and run as that while not really being that. Trump showed that method was wildly successful, so, I'd expect other candidates in the future to follow that route.

I've been seeing stuff go around that the DNC is trying to take steps to prevent this from happening again.  More stringent requirements on affiliation to qualify for running in D primaries.

Obviously this means that the Republican primary should get filled up with progressives and we flip the parties again.

[smjjames]

However, as things stand as far as third parties making any headway in this political system, they'd have to do what Trump did, wear the jersey (or skin if you want to get macabre) of either major party and run as that while not really being that. Trump showed that method was wildly successful, so, I'd expect other candidates in the future to follow that route.

I've been seeing stuff go around that the DNC is trying to take steps to prevent this from happening again.  More stringent requirements on affiliation to qualify for running in D primaries.

Obviously this means that the Republican primary should get filled up with progressives and we flip the parties again.

That would be juiceily ironic.

[EnigmaticHat]

Texas negotiated the "split into 5 states" clause as a condition of joining the Union.  So there's a chance that could be legal.

It would probably destroy the Republican party however.  Right now Texas has 2 red senators and a million house of reps people.  If they split it, it would have 2-4* blue senators, 4-6 red senators, and a million blue house of reps people.  Because if Houston and the surrounding area becomes its own state, there's no way to gerrymander that where it isn't a democratic stronghold.  And it would be by far the most populous of the proposed states.  For all intents and purposes invoking that clause would turn Texas purple, which would be a political disaster for Republicans (akin to California going purple for democrats).

*IIRC each of the prospective states is based on one of the 5 largest cities in Texas, and Austin is at the center with a tiny state.  From what I've heard of Austin its shifting either purple or blue due to people moving in from California (and having been left of Texas in general for a while).

[Starver]

Texas is a large state, so it doubtless could be split.

Alaska has the claim of being the largest state, though, usurping Texas's prior boast and relegating them to second place. I suppose Texans could always petition to split Alaska into two halves - making Texas now the third largest state.

[Trekkin]

Texas technically has the ability to section off up to four more states out of its own area, but it's difficult to see why it would do that; a bluer Texas could theoretically put the southwest edge of the state and some of its urban areas into one or at most two Texlets, but then they'd presumably want to carve the upper portion of the state into two hyperconservative Texlets to avoid adding net liberal Senators, an they would be left with a relatively small, questionably red state. I don't think they're* psychologically capable of deciding to do that.

EDIT: *"They're" meaning the state legislature, to be clear.

[scriver]

Personally I think the only proper way to cut California is into Jefferson, The Valley, Socal, and Gran Francisco.

[SaberToothTiger]

Personally I think the only proper way to cut California is into Jefferson, The Valley, Socal, and Gran Francisco.

And the kingdom of Sacramento.

[sluissa]

Personally I think the only proper way to cut California is into Jefferson, The Valley, Socal, and Gran Francisco.

And the kingdom of Sacramento.

Gran Francisco and The Kingdom of Sacramento go to war. The area in between becomes a lawless wasteland and the Raiders of Oakland pillage the countryside.

[Baffler]

The real best way to split California is the State of Jefferson. It exists as a proposal to essentially enfranchise the considerable Republican population of the state who right now are permanently irrelevant because masses of the bluest Dems in the country are concentrated on the coasts and in Sacramento. As-is they have to answer to their whims while simultaneously being neglected by them. The proposal Draper puts forward is essentially a Democratic gerrymander. Notice how it puts Oakland, Sacramento, and San Francisco in Norcal where almost all of the red counties are, and the rest are in Socal which is somewhat more competitive but will not be so for long because of demographic displacement.

Personally I think the only proper way to cut California is into Jefferson, The Valley, Socal, and Gran Francisco.

And the kingdom of Sacramento.

Gran Francisco and The Kingdom of Sacramento go to war. The area in between becomes a lawless wasteland and the Raiders of Oakland pillage the countryside.

Southern annexation when? The kings of Baja have tried Emperor Yudkow's patience for too long.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Curious as to what Bay12ers think/are feeling about this: (sorry, completely departure from discussion at hand)

Part Un:

I went to a Dave Chapelle + Jon Stewart + Michael Che (as the opener) comedy show last night and while both Dave (ofc) and Michael were pretty hilarious, Jon Stewart was, imo, awful. I mean... he just bashed Trump for 45 minutes. There weren't even jokes really, he was just recounting confrontations with him (like the whole twitter debacle). Now, realistically, I'm a pretty moderate guy, I didn't vote, and most of the political hatred has gone over my head--I've been able to just silently slip away from all the debates and rage between parties. But idk, this bothers me. Not so much the actual bashing of Trump, because there is a lot to legitimately say about his administration and his penchant for the controversial, but the fact that people aren't even trying to really say anything that hasn't already been said is, idk, different?

Every week I hear the same jokes, the same parodies, the same impressions--it's tiring. Do people really think Trump is THAT funny? I mean, granted, at first it was SO outlandish as to compel discourse, but now it's just become this tired charade. I can't seem to really find a reason why, of all things, people find it --funny--??? The two opinions I've heard concerning this are either, "Trump is terrible and deserves as much and any abuse we can give him--he has ruined my life" and "It's completely inappropriate and outrageous to make fun of the President. He's our quarterback, and criticizing him makes us look bad". Neither of which make any sense to me. On one hand, people's day to day lives haven't really changed all that much. On the other hand, he's enacted a lot of policies which probably are NOT in the best interest of the American public (I think, I don't really know) and the only meaningful commentary has to be public in some way.

Where it all falls apart for me, is that, from what I have seen, there is no actual political satire or social commentary taking place. It's so blunt, so on the nose, it's all lost it's impact and/or poignancy. (In contrast to Jon, Dave actually had a lot of good, sad bits that made you think about American society). Do people really hate him so much that you can say ANYTHING about him and it becomes funny, like some sort of schoolyard rivalry?

Part Deux:

That leads me to my next point, which bothers me even more--and way more personally. The seemingly prevailing opinion that it is the duty of American artists to criticize the establishment, to craft some kind of commentary in all their work that speaks to how things could be, in a very mundane and realistic way. I don't know if many people feel this way, but in my circles I hear it all time. If anything, I think that when people are so openly blunt about Trump, but disguise it as some kind of comedy or serious storytelling it really ruins the work. Whatever it is. America has lost it's subtly. I'm all for criticism, but it's just not made productively any more--it's like people have given up?

I'm not quite sure I'm adequately unpacking this feeling, but when a story or a picture or a joke directly attacks someone, even someone detestable, it just loses all it's weight. It's a quick laugh, I'm not going to go home and think about. (Shit, I've already forgotten half of Jon's stuff.) Some people might not care about this happening at all, but for me, when politics start influence the way you tell stories, how you communicate emotion--in a way that really drains a lot of... authority of it--idk, it cheapens a lot of entertainment, a lot of which ends up being a lot more formative to people (of any age, on a variety of thoughts) than just derisive escapism.

As someone who has always placed a lot of importance on making people laugh and sharing moments through dialogue/storytelling/conversation, it seems crazy to me that people expect or even think that it's a great idea to skip the humanity of storytelling to get your point across.

IDK, I'm sure I have some more cohesive thoughts about it all rolling around in my head, but this is the best I can write done presently.

[SalmonGod]

1.  Many people's day-to-day lives have changed quite a bit, and that influence on real life experiences will likely continue to expand.

2.  Jon Stewart does often abandon wit.  He's just ok at what he does, imo.  The humor is supposed to be in the perceived audacity of how far reality is removed from reason, according to the opinions of the target audience.  The repetitiveness of it is just a coping mechanism.  It does get old.  But it's essentially the same thing as co-workers repeating the same half-humor snarks about problems with their office environment to each other every day at the printer/water cooler, but at the cultural scope of a nation instead of an office.  It's just venting.  When people live with something that bothers them, they'll keep venting until it goes away.  It's not enlightened behavior, but it's human.

[Max™]

Texas negotiated the "split into 5 states" clause as a condition of joining the Union.  So there's a chance that could be legal.

It would probably destroy the Republican party however.  Right now Texas has 2 red senators and a million house of reps people.  If they split it, it would have 2-4* blue senators, 4-6 red senators, and a million blue house of reps people.  Because if Houston and the surrounding area becomes its own state, there's no way to gerrymander that where it isn't a democratic stronghold.  And it would be by far the most populous of the proposed states.  For all intents and purposes invoking that clause would turn Texas purple, which would be a political disaster for Republicans (akin to California going purple for democrats).

*IIRC each of the prospective states is based on one of the 5 largest cities in Texas, and Austin is at the center with a tiny state.  From what I've heard of Austin its shifting either purple or blue due to people moving in from California (and having been left of Texas in general for a while).

I'm from Dallas and had no idea there were republican types in Texas until I left. It was a forward thinking liberal land as far as I knew.