• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Split California into six states?

Dittohead not! said:
Except that there is no provision in the Constitution for states to share a senator. Are we to have a Constitutional amendment? The likelihood of such an amendment passing is somewhere between slim and none.
Click to expand...

It was the closest thing to a compromise I could think of.

Dittohead not! said:
If the other states are jealous of the potential increase in power, maybe they could follow suit. I could see a West Washington (blue state) and an East Washington (red state) for example. Surely, a big state like Texas could find a reason to split into more than one.
Click to expand...

California doesn't need any more power at the Federal level. It clocks in with the most Congressional districts now and did back in 2000.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
It was the closest thing to a compromise I could think of.



California doesn't need any more power at the Federal level. It clocks in with the most Congressional districts now and did back in 2000.
Click to expand...
I think more power at the federal level is more or less an unintended consequence. The goal of those behind splitting the state is not to have politics dominated by the big urban areas.

But, there are many unintended consequences. Splitting the state of California, particularly into as many as six new states, has a lot of unforeseen likely results.
 
vesper said:
Not at all. Those counties that break away to make a new state will have their representation decided on their population. Now I know why you would hate to see that happen. It would mean you could no longer enslave these folks to pay for your nanny state agenda. If California split or any other state, the conservatives would have all the jobs because they are business friendly, people would be working and unemployment rates would be low. The more people working the more the state collects while decreasing revenues for welfare which allows less reasons to raise taxes allowing people to keep more of their money. It's a win win situation. :)
Click to expand...

Oh, I get it. Representation based on population is a good thing, provided that it's the right kind of population, i.e. the kind that agrees with you.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I think more power at the federal level is more or less an unintended consequence. The goal of those behind splitting the state is not to have politics dominated by the big urban areas.
Click to expand...

That's why I suggested that California use its own political process to subdivide itself and delegate authority to a regional level of government. Influence gets decentralized, and the rest of the country doesn't have to figure out how to deal with 5 new states.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Oh, I get it. Representation based on population is a good thing, provided that it's the right kind of population, i.e. the kind that agrees with you.
Click to expand...

Actually it is more like a divorce on the grounds of decades of abuse as being used as a door mat, raped of our money, beaten down by those who forgot the definition of personal responsibility. irreconcilable differences.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
That's why I suggested that California use its own political process to subdivide itself and delegate authority to a regional level of government. Influence gets decentralized, and the rest of the country doesn't have to figure out how to deal with 5 new states.
Click to expand...

That would be a good compromise. Now, to sell the idea to the voters in those large urban areas who will lose power over the rest of the state.
 
Paschendale said:
Why bother with states at all, then? Just have local levels, like cities or counties, and then have them all be within a consistently sized and shaped region (state equivalent) but have it as a bureaucratic midway between local and national, instead of the mess that states are. Then we can stop mucking about with redistricting, gerrymandering, the electoral college, and a whole lot of other nonsense.
Click to expand...

I think that's a great idea, but I'm afraid nobody will ever go for that.
 
Dittohead not! said:
That would be a good compromise. Now, to sell the idea to the voters in those large urban areas who will lose power over the rest of the state.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't think most voters think of their vote in terms of having power over the fates of others -- it's more like they think of it in terms of protecting their personal interests. That's the basis you sell it on -- this gives you more say over what happens in your particular region of the state with less interference from other regions, all under the umbrella of the state government.
 
vesper said:
Actually it is more like a divorce on the grounds of decades of abuse as being used as a door mat, raped of our money, beaten down by those who forgot the definition of personal responsibility. irreconcilable differences.
Click to expand...

Justify your double-standard any way you like.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Honestly, I don't think most voters think of their vote in terms of having power over the fates of others -- it's more like they think of it in terms of protecting their personal interests. That's the basis you sell it on -- this gives you more say over what happens in your particular region of the state with less interference from other regions, all under the umbrella of the state government.
Click to expand...

That's true, but their votes do have consequences for power over others.

Here's a local example: The state is facing a possible, even probable environmental disaster. No, it doesn't have to do with pollution or light bulbs or anything like that, but the fact that as of now, the middle of January, there is zero snow in the Sierras.
Now, the folks back east, up to their eyeballs in snow and cold, may not think that is a problem, but here we have a 400 by 50 mile desert called the Central Valley that depends on water from the snowpack to produce a significant portion of the nations fruits, vegetables, and nuts.

Yep, I admit it, California is the source of a lot of fruits and nuts. Cue: Jokes.

Unless there are some significant storms between now and April, there will be no water from the Sierras this year. Never, in all the years I've lived here, have I ever seen the mountains with no snowpack at all. This could be the worst drought in our history.

and meanwhile, the governor doesn't want to declare a state of emergency and allow us to save what little water there is.

Now, if the people who grow those fruits and nuts had their way, we'd be addressing this issue now, and not next summer when it's too late.
but, no, the folks in SF have other priorities, like building a high speed rail most of us think of as the train to nowhere.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Justify your double-standard any way you like.
Click to expand...
No double-standard. But if it were to happen it surely would be double trouble for folks like you livin in da Blue!
 
Dittohead not! said:
That's true, but their votes do have consequences for power over others.
Click to expand...

Of course, I do understand this concept, I'm just telling you the best way to sell it based on how your average Joe probably looks at the ballot box.

Dittohead not! said:
Here's a local example: The state is facing a possible, even probable environmental disaster. No, it doesn't have to do with pollution or light bulbs or anything like that, but the fact that as of now, the middle of January, there is zero snow in the Sierras.
Now, the folks back east, up to their eyeballs in snow and cold, may not think that is a problem, but here we have a 400 by 50 mile desert called the Central Valley that depends on water from the snowpack to produce a significant portion of the nations fruits, vegetables, and nuts.

Yep, I admit it, California is the source of a lot of fruits and nuts. Cue: Jokes.

Unless there are some significant storms between now and April, there will be no water from the Sierras this year. Never, in all the years I've lived here, have I ever seen the mountains with no snowpack at all. This could be the worst drought in our history.

and meanwhile, the governor doesn't want to declare a state of emergency and allow us to save what little water there is.

Now, if the people who grow those fruits and nuts had their way, we'd be addressing this issue now, and not next summer when it's too late.
but, no, the folks in SF have other priorities, like building a high speed rail most of us think of as the train to nowhere.
Click to expand...

You don't have to sell me on regionalization -- I've been saying for a long time that too many people are represented by too few people.
 
vesper said:
No double-standard.
Click to expand...

If you're okay with representation when you are lumped with others who agree with you, but think representation is bad when you are lumped in with others who disagree with you, that's a double-standard. Either representation in and of itself is a good idea or a bad idea, it doesn't improve or degenerate as a concept based on whether or not other people disagree with you.

vesper said:
But if it were to happen it surely would be double trouble for folks like you livin in da Blue!
Click to expand...

Folks "like you?" What exactly do you mean by that?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
If you're okay with representation when you are lumped with others who agree with you, but think representation is bad when you are lumped in with others who disagree with you, that's a double-standard. Either representation in and of itself is a good idea or a bad idea, it doesn't improve or degenerate as a concept based on whether or not other people disagree with you.



Folks "like you?" What exactly do you mean by that?
Click to expand...

No it isn't double standards for people wanting to separate from those who have for decades abused them. When people treat other people like vending machines for all their wants and needs it gets old. After decades of abuse, they have had it. If you aren't one of those who expect others to pay your way then disregard the "like you" in my previous post.
 
vesper said:
No it isn't double standards for people wanting to separate from those who have for decades abused them. When people treat other people like vending machines for all their wants and needs it gets old. After decades of abuse, they have had it.
Click to expand...

Either representation is a good idea in general or it is not. Whether or not it is a good idea does not change based on the opinions of your neighbors. To say otherwise is to advocate a double-standard.

Also, I'm sure there are plenty of people with disagree with you on the subject of public assistance or social safety nets or taxation who aren't treating you "like a vending machine."

vesper said:
If you aren't one of those who expect others to pay your way then disregard the "like you" in my previous post.
Click to expand...

You need to learn that those who disagree with you are not your enemy, are not looking to take advantage of you, and do not eye you with conquest on their mind. It is behavior, not opinions, you should be wary of.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Either representation is a good idea in general or it is not. Whether or not it is a good idea does not change based on the opinions of your neighbors. To say otherwise is to advocate a double-standard.

Also, I'm sure there are plenty of people with disagree with you on the subject of public assistance or social safety nets or taxation who aren't treating you "like a vending machine."



You need to learn that those who disagree with you are not your enemy, are not looking to take advantage of you, and do not eye you with conquest on their mind. It is behavior, not opinions, you should be wary of.
Click to expand...
Some have argued for secession as a constitutional right and others as from a natural right of revolution. When you have endured decades of feckless spending creating a culture of dependency and it is your pocketbook that takes the hit with every new program I can think of no better reason for secession from a state that is on a spiral downturn. If the people in those areas seek to do such, more power to them. And if/when they create a new state they are entitled to representation like any other state. It is one thing to support a safety net and altogether something else to allow it to become a way of life.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness
 
vesper said:
Some have argued for secession as a constitutional right and others as from a natural right of revolution. When you have endured decades of feckless spending creating a culture of dependency and it is your pocketbook that takes the hit with every new program I can think of no better reason for secession from a state that is on a spiral downturn. If the people in those areas seek to do such, more power to them. And if/when they create a new state they are entitled to representation like any other state. It is one thing to support a safety net and altogether something else to allow it to become a way of life.
Click to expand...

Nothing you said in the above paragraph bears any relevance to the conversation we've been having, nor does it any way make a double-standard less of a double-standard. At any rate, feel free to break away or engage in revolution, but please stop talking about it. I'm sick and tired of hearing from armchair generals who rattle their sabers ... and then go back to watching the game.

vesper said:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness
Click to expand...

The Declaration of Independence has no relevance in this discussion. It contains many wonderful sentiments but has no legal weight.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Nothing you said in the above paragraph bears any relevance to the conversation we've been having, nor does it any way make a double-standard less of a double-standard. At any rate, feel free to break away or engage in revolution, but please stop talking about it. I'm sick and tired of hearing from armchair generals who rattle their sabers ... and then go back to watching the game.
Click to expand...

To you my comments bear no relevance to the conversation. I and maybe some others do find them to be relevant. With the disrespect for the Constitution growing and the rule of law being violated pertaining to federal and state governance, a good portion of Americans now believe that any state or region has the right to peaceably secede and become an independent republic or secede from a state and become an independent state in the union. Thomas Paine's pamphlet "Common Sense" use to be mandatory reading when I was in high school, doubt that is the case today. I'm not rattling sabres, just merely pointing out the justification of these folks to seek succession.

The Declaration of Independence has no relevance in this discussion. It contains many wonderful sentiments but has no legal weight.
Click to expand...
It has no legal weight with you and others because for so long it has been allowed to be violated. The Declaration of Independence is the document in which our country was founded. And its principles speak directly to the Constitution and the rule of law. It is very relevant in today's discussion.
 
vesper said:
To you my comments bear no relevance to the conversation.
Click to expand...

We were talking about representative government when you randomly and with no other context brought up secession and revolution.

vesper said:
I and maybe some others do find them to be relevant. With the disrespect for the Constitution growing and the rule of law being violated pertaining to federal and state governance, a good portion of Americans now believe that any state or region has the right to peaceably secede and become an independent republic or secede from a state and become an independent state in the union. Thomas Paine's pamphlet "Common Sense" use to be mandatory reading when I was in high school, doubt that is the case today. I'm not rattling sabres, just merely pointing out the justification of these folks to seek succession.
Click to expand...

Whosoever advocates secession or revolution is welcome to seek either, and in the mean time they should shut the **** up. It's put up or shut up time.

vesper said:
It has no legal weight with you and others because for so long it has been allowed to be violated.
Click to expand...

Please point to the portion of the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution which in any way refers to the Declaration. Please point to the Federal law which in any way codifies the Declaration as being legally binding. In other words, please point to where in American jurisprudence the Declaration is given any legal weight whatsoever.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
We were talking about representative government when you randomly and with no other context brought up secession and revolution.
Click to expand...
Excuse me my conversations with others were about the secession of counties in the state of California for the purpose to create a new state so as far as context goes I have not strayed.


Whosoever advocates secession or revolution is welcome to seek either, and in the mean time they should shut the **** up. It's put up or shut up time.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid these types of issues aren't going to follow your time schedule. So take a chill pill.

Please point to the portion of the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution which in any way refers to the Declaration. Please point to the Federal law which in any way codifies the Declaration as being legally binding. In other words, please point to where in American jurisprudence the Declaration is given any legal weight whatsoever.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is necessary nor worth the effort to continue with this discussion with someone that can't even recognize the Declaration of Independence as what established our rights/freedoms and is the document that is the foundation for the framework of the Constitution.
 
vesper said:
Excuse me my conversations with others were about the secession of counties in the state of California for the purpose to create a new state so as far as context goes I have not strayed.
Click to expand...

It wasn't about secession at all. Creation of a new state is not secession. There is a Constitutional mechanism for the creation of new states, even from existing states, but there is none for secession.

vesper said:
I'm afraid these types of issues aren't going to follow your time schedule. So take a chill pill.
Click to expand...

I don't care about when it happens, and I don't think it ever will -- I'm saying either get on with it or stop talking about it.

vesper said:
I don't think it is necessary nor worth the effort to continue with this discussion with someone that can't even recognize the Declaration of Independence as what established our rights/freedoms and is the document that is the foundation for the framework of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I'm fully aware of the origins of the Declaration, the concepts expressed in the Declaration, and the role played by those concepts and their authors in the drafting of the Constitution. I simply refuse to allow you to describe it in any way that ascribes legal weight to it, for it has none.
 
According to Merriam Webster

se·ces·sion noun \si-ˈse-shən\

: the act of separating from a nation or state and becoming independent

For counties in one state to wish to secede from said state is the act of secession.
 
vesper said:
According to Merriam Webster

se·ces·sion noun \si-ˈse-shən\

: the act of separating from a nation or state and becoming independent

For counties in one state to wish to secede from said state is the act of secession.
Click to expand...

Just how independent is a region that separates from a member of the union to become ... a member of the union? You're splitting hairs.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Just how independent is a region that separates from a member of the union to become ... a member of the union? You're splitting hairs.
Click to expand...

There is a case Texas v. White, the United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional, while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom