"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."

The way I remember it is they seceded during the Revolution, not under the constition of course but still seceding, I could be wrong though,

On second thought after reading the article, Southern California seems retarded. The state division is my only complaint. LA should be in SC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"People can't join the US. STATES join or territories that the US has established. The citizens of TX didn't join the union, TX did. The people through their elected STATE representatives petitioned the US Congress for admittance."

Blah Blah Blah, Wrong, The states do not accept the constitution, the people through state ratifying conventions accept the constitution. This was done purposefully. The citizens of Texas did join the union by ratifying the constitution

actually I might be wrong on the texas part, Im not sure the legal rational for added states, Ill read up on it, but for the original 13 that was the rational behind ratification

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

Why? Just because states haven't split before doesn't mean it won't happen in the future. There's even a mechanism for it in the Constitution. I think it's very, very unlikely that anything like this cockamamie idea happens but if it did you wouldn't need there to be a civil war.

I think you're just getting excited with civil war talk because the proposal starts with "South." If it were East California you'd be singing a different tune.

Blah Blah Blah, Wrong, The states do not accept the constitution, the people through state ratifying conventions accept the constitution. This was done purposefully. The citizens of Texas did join the union by ratifying the constitution

WRONG--State ratifying conventions have been used only once. 21st amendment. State legislatures ratified the Constitution.

State legislatures ratified the Constitution.

WRONG-

State Constitutional Conventions ratified the Constitution

@Fasces:

As a MEMBER of LA County...

HELL. FUCKING. NO!

I piss all over Los Angeles and LA County all the time, but it's still not bad at all, still would rather live near such a big city with all the theatres and lights and...pollution...and street crime--but still, not bad.

And LA County's politics I LIKE.



LA=/=San Diego politically, so puttingn LA in this imaginar SC is like putting New York in the middle of Texas politically.

NOT. GONNA. HAPPEN.

Even the idiot who dreamed up this idea knew better than to include LA County, we'd NEVER go along with those idiots!

South C is a horrible idea. It would cause endless amounts of money to hash out the legislation and the time it would take in congress is sourly needed for the multitude of other problems facing the country.

but I am wrong about Texas and other non-original states Im actually interested in the legal rational behind these

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

Which is why the one colony that did not even attend the Constitutional Convention was Rhode Island as an act of protest. Georgia ratified the Constitution unanimously.

"If it were East California you'd be singing a different tune."

Noooooo...

I'd STILL say "That's the dumbsest idea I've ever heard, to divide my state up jsut because some Republicans are crying about losing every election here and the GOP would like lessen the amount of electoral votes for "California" and gain some with this "New California."



This is a gerrymandered, idiotic proposition.

The "South" nomer only adds to that, but I'd be just as opposed if it were "East California."

and the Federalist papers, btw, were expressly written to convince New Yorkers to ratify the Constitution

obiwanobiwan. Seriously. Calm down. This is one county supervisor talking to a newspaper. Maybe he's going to propose the plan at HIS county's meeting. Think about how irrelevant this is.

This is as far from happening as my 8th grade class's idea to combine the Dakotas and let Puerto Rico in to keep the number at fifty.

Which is why the one colony that did not even attend the Constitutional Convention was Rhode Island as an act of protest. Georgia ratified the Constitution unanimously.

???? Do you mean at the convention?

@Invictus:

I'm not really upset. :)

I'm just passionate about how stupid this idea is... :p

"The "South" nomer only adds to that, but I'd be just as opposed if it were "East California.""

Yeah it's dumb. It's also ONE COUNTY SUPERVISOR'S IDEA. Just one! You being opposed to this is like being opposed to butchering unicorns for dog food.

"Yeah it's dumb. It's also ONE COUNTY SUPERVISOR'S IDEA. Just one! You being opposed to this is like being opposed to butchering unicorns for dog food."

I AM TOTALLY OPPOSED TO THAT!

HOW DARE THEY SLAUGHTER THAT IMAGINARY ENDANGERED SPECIES FOR CHEAP FOOD?

AND HOW DARE THEY FEED DOGS THAT SHIT ANYWAY?

I AM OUTRAGED!

XD

Proposals splitting California, as far as I can tell, have been a perennial phenomenon. This is not the first time it's been proposed. It's perhaps the first time such a blatantly gerrymandered version of southern California was proposed.

Santa, the Vermont thing, as I recall "is complicated." A number of smaller states wanted New York's size to be significantly smaller since it had a lot of sway in the proposed system of government by dint of being larger, so they carved off some portions, giving some to Connecticut and some to Massachusetts and a Great Lakes port to Pennsylvania...and then there was just this mass of land that was essentially no man's land. It set up a government and intended to be a state, but that wasn't really fitting in with the initial governmental plans of other states, so it became an independent republic briefly until it was allowed in.

As I remember from 8th grade New York State history, which I took in the mid-80's, so I could be off a little.

we are heading toward the abolition of the Electoral college anyway, it wont matter in 25 years

THE UNION would not stand for the butchering of endangered species. The would go to war over such a thing. And historians would call it a Civil War, not a War of Union Aggression.

@Santa:

I hope not.

I'm in favor of the Electoral College...popular voting=mass and mob mentality, the foudners knew that.

They also must have known what Mr. H.L. Mencken would say, and agreed with him:

"The common man's a fool."

I believe the disputed land between New Hampshire & NY was officially given to NY by King George, and then a bunch of these people granted land by the New Hampshire colony in the years prior to the King's ruling were upset by this and rebelled.

still not going to admit you were wrong? About nothing big, you know, only the fundamental force from which our Constitution and therefore government derives its power.

If we abolish the Electoral College we'll have to abolish or radically change the Senate by almost the same logic. That wouldn't happen in 25 years or 125, not least because equal representation in the Senate is an entrenched clause.

Ah, looking it up, I see that England granted land in what is now Vermont to both New Hampshire and New York, and Vermont rebelled and set up its own government in order to keep things working without dealing with the drama from the two sets of state government. So while they did kind of secede, it's not clear who or what from, technically.

I know about Ethan Allen and co. I just never knew (or was taught) the legal origins of Vermont. Interesting, Something ill have to read about.

The electoral college is mostly irrelevant. Over half the states have laws or pledges which commit electors to abide by popular will. Parties are very careful to pick loyal electors.