I have read a few times recently about a portion of California wanting to become a separate state. Here in Illinois their are many of us "downstaters" that feel we would like to be apart from Chicago. Could this really happen? Where do you start? Who decides?
I think it is highly unlikely. There are some very big issues involved. Let me walk through a few.
US representatives are allocated per state based on population. US senators, however, are allocated as two per state. Rhode Island -- a very small state area-wise -- has two senators. Montana a very large state area-wise -- has two senators. New York State -- a very large state population-wise -- has two senators. Wyoming -- a very small state population-wise -- has two senators. If you start splitting up state, you are changing the balances of senators in the senate. You can bet that any splitting of a liberal state into two new states, each with two senators, would necessarily have to be offset by similar splits of a conservative state into two new states, each with two senators. Starting to do this would weaken state's rights, I sense, without being able to articulate specifically why I think this.
If states can be re-sliced and re-diced at will . . . why can't a state succeed from the union? Yes, this is a different question, granted. But the underlying context of splitting states is that the original deal cut 220 odd years ago isn't fixed in stone, is plastic, is flexible -- the only question is how much flex are we talking about. If it is legitimate that the will of the people to reslice a state can be acceded to, why isn't it legitimate that the will of the people to sever a state be acceded to? Let me tell you, I would guess there are a lot of folks down in Texas who would happily separate from the rest of the US. In fact, maybe Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, and Arizona would join and jointly sever? maybe add New Mexico in also (don't know their political tendency -- may be marginally liberal). Maybe Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Idaho. Water, food, coal, sea ports, contiguous land area -- this unit could be self-sufficient. Let the freakin' liberals have their way and give all their money away to the do-nothings and the disadvantaged. Let them run up their national debt to astronomical figures.
So I don't think we want to open up that Pandora's box. It is just some wild talk of some folks in California and ultra-liberals in Tucson, Arizona. I don't think it is going to happen.
I think it is highly unlikely. There are some very big issues involved. Let me walk through a few.
US representatives are allocated per state based on population. US senators, however, are allocated as two per state. Rhode Island -- a very small state area-wise -- has two senators. Montana a very large state area-wise -- has two senators. New York State -- a very large state population-wise -- has two senators. Wyoming -- a very small state population-wise -- has two senators. If you start splitting up state, you are changing the balances of senators in the senate. You can bet that any splitting of a liberal state into two new states, each with two senators, would necessarily have to be offset by similar splits of a conservative state into two new states, each with two senators. Starting to do this would weaken state's rights, I sense, without being able to articulate specifically why I think this.
If states can be re-sliced and re-diced at will . . . why can't a state succeed from the union? Yes, this is a different question, granted. But the underlying context of splitting states is that the original deal cut 220 odd years ago isn't fixed in stone, is plastic, is flexible -- the only question is how much flex are we talking about. If it is legitimate that the will of the people to reslice a state can be acceded to, why isn't it legitimate that the will of the people to sever a state be acceded to? Let me tell you, I would guess there are a lot of folks down in Texas who would happily separate from the rest of the US. In fact, maybe Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, and Arizona would join and jointly sever? maybe add New Mexico in also (don't know their political tendency -- may be marginally liberal). Maybe Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Idaho. Water, food, coal, sea ports, contiguous land area -- this unit could be self-sufficient. Let the freakin' liberals have their way and give all their money away to the do-nothings and the disadvantaged. Let them run up their national debt to astronomical figures.
So I don't think we want to open up that Pandora's box. It is just some wild talk of some folks in California and ultra-liberals in Tucson, Arizona. I don't think it is going to happen.
I do not believe extra states would weaken states' rights, but it would upset the balance in the Senate by adding 2 more either libs or cons. And I can tell you if the country splits up along the lines you just posed, it'll be 'Go West Young Man'....well....maybe not so young anymore.
I think Congress might throw some roadblocks in the way. You could have one state splitting into a half dozen pieces, each with two senators. Think of the effect on the operation of Congress. Of course, each state would have to divide up its Congressional districts. Since they are proportional by population, What used to be Nebraska would have the same number of reps divided up between Nebraska I, Nebraska II, etc.
__________________
Proud parents of our own "Daddy's Little Girls"
I heard Jesus He drank wine and I bet we'd get along just fine.
I think Congress might throw some roadblocks in the way. You could have one state splitting into a half dozen pieces, each with two senators. Think of the effect on the operation of Congress. Of course, each state would have to divide up its Congressional districts. Since they are proportional by population, What used to be Nebraska would have the same number of reps divided up between Nebraska I, Nebraska II, etc.
Yes...you are perceptive in this....so a state like Kalifornia splitting up into North Kalifornia and South Kalifornia would need to redistrict their representatives. The most important thing would be the reapportionment of electoral votes....Kalifornia would not be the the electoral powerhouse it is, as you'd have San Francisco and Sacramento vs. the Los Angeles and San Diego megalopolises. It would be interesting to see....demographically, we might see S.Kalifornia stay the commie skunks we know them to be, but N.Kalifornia be more moderate, once it's freed of the commie minions from the south. Could change the way all presidential races are conducted.....
51st state
