New California's Secession From (Old) California

[Telconi]

Well, no, because that's something entirely different...

How is that any different?

I'm not going to spend sixteen pages trying to explain it to you.

[Snowman]

it will never be approved by Sacramento. States cannot secede from the union nor be formed from another without their consent.

Plus those rural counties would never survive on their own.

"But they have food!" - the eternal argument of why rural counties don't need urban areas.

Hey, we don't. Depending on your definition of rural, I mean lots of states have big land & no super cities, just a few meh ones. As much as I make California the butt of stupid law jokes, obviously we aren't just gonna up & divide the country.

[Reploid Productions]

Why is it stupid?

Because allowing the entity that is the source of the grievance to veto the action is absurd. It would be as if a law required you to get landlord permission before moving out of an apartment, or your employer's permission before resigning your employment.

Which remains a completely moot point because even in rural counties, these secession-flavor types do not represent anything close to a majority of the population in the "aggrieved" areas. This isn't some sweeping tide rising up to wash over California politics, it's just the latest iteration of the same tiny noisy minority that likes to stick its head up and beat it on this particular brick wall every couple of years and generally fails to get anywhere close to enough signatures to put the latest version of the idea onto an actual ballot.

[San Lumen]

Because allowing the entity that is the source of the grievance to veto the action is absurd. It would be as if a law required you to get landlord permission before moving out of an apartment, or your employer's permission before resigning your employment.

Which remains a completely moot point because even in rural counties, these secession-flavor types do not represent anything close to a majority of the population in the "aggrieved" areas. This isn't some sweeping tide rising up to wash over California politics, it's just the latest iteration of the same tiny noisy minority that likes to stick its head up and beat it on this particular brick wall every couple of years and generally fails to get anywhere close to enough signatures to put the latest version of the idea onto an actual ballot.

These type of things have been proposed in several states before. Its never gone anywhere. There has been a movement to split Cook County from Illinois, its never gone anywhere for decades.

[Telconi]

Because allowing the entity that is the source of the grievance to veto the action is absurd. It would be as if a law required you to get landlord permission before moving out of an apartment, or your employer's permission before resigning your employment.

Which remains a completely moot point because even in rural counties, these secession-flavor types do not represent anything close to a majority of the population in the "aggrieved" areas. This isn't some sweeping tide rising up to wash over California politics, it's just the latest iteration of the same tiny noisy minority that likes to stick its head up and beat it on this particular brick wall every couple of years and generally fails to get anywhere close to enough signatures to put the latest version of the idea onto an actual ballot.

There is an essence of principle that makes the point relevant regardless.

[San Lumen]

Which remains a completely moot point because even in rural counties, these secession-flavor types do not represent anything close to a majority of the population in the "aggrieved" areas. This isn't some sweeping tide rising up to wash over California politics, it's just the latest iteration of the same tiny noisy minority that likes to stick its head up and beat it on this particular brick wall every couple of years and generally fails to get anywhere close to enough signatures to put the latest version of the idea onto an actual ballot.

There is an essence of principle that makes the point relevant regardless.

how?

[Greater Kossackia]

Id say the real problem is representation at the state level. As I said in another post, many of the rural counties don't feel like they have a voice in Sacramento. Give them that, and there'll be no Reason for secession.

Which is a completely bullshit argument. They have representation in Sacramento in proportion to their population in the state. They are a small minority and therefore have a small say in the state government. Their complaint isn't that they don't have a say, it's that they don't get special treatment.

[Conserative Morality]

Hey, we don't.

Only in the broadest, most subsistence sense are rural areas even capable of self-sufficiency.

Depending on your definition of rural, I mean lots of states have big land & no super cities, just a few meh ones. As much as I make California the butt of stupid law jokes, obviously we aren't just gonna up & divide the country.

Funny how different people define rural and urban differently. Was talking with someone the other day from a city of some 40,000 who regarded it as rather rustic - whereas I live in a town of 20,000 that everyone around here regards as a city.

[San Lumen]

Id say the real problem is representation at the state level. As I said in another post, many of the rural counties don't feel like they have a voice in Sacramento. Give them that, and there'll be no Reason for secession.

and what would you change about the system? succession is never going to happen.

[The Grande Republic 0f Arcadia]

Sauces:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-california-declares-independence-from-rest-of-state/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/01/16/new-california-declares-independence-california-bid-become-51st-state/1036681001/

So another talk about secession but this time instead of leaving the US the people want to leave a state. The rural counties of California want to leave the State and form the state of New California this would leave the Coastal Urban counties that house cities such as San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles, and San Diego to be what is left of the state of California.

My thoughts in regards to the statehood aspect is if they want it let them do it at least it wouldn't be like Puerto Rico, or D.C. vying for statehood. Plus it would give people better options when moving to the West coast if these people can show they can run effectively and efficiently. So what do you people think? Especially those who were born or lived or still live in California

it will never be approved by Sacramento. States cannot secede from the union nor be formed from another without their consent.

Plus those rural counties would never survive on their own.

they could get interstate trade, but the states would go broke if they do split from Cali

[San Lumen]

it will never be approved by Sacramento. States cannot secede from the union nor be formed from another without their consent.

Plus those rural counties would never survive on their own.

they could get interstate trade, but the states would go broke if they do split from Cali

which is part of the reason this will go nowhere.

[Ethel mermania]

The state government having to approve of partitions of states is a bullshit provision in the Constitution, because no state government would willingly sign away part of their powah.

Hmmm ... suppose everyone in the section that wishes to secede stops bathing and groups of them stand on hills upwind of the other part? Or just visit the state capitol in large groups?

Truely the peasants are revolting.

[Claorica]

Let them go. No government should exist over a government capable of handling the full duties of a sovereign government.

[San Lumen]

Let them go. No government should exist over a government capable of handling the full duties of a sovereign government.

the state government based in Sacramento is sovereign over the state. These counties have a voice in government they just dont get special treatment which is what they want and what your want for your rural county.

[Telconi]

Let them go. No government should exist over a government capable of handling the full duties of a sovereign government.

the state government based in Sacramento is sovereign over the state. These counties have a voice in government they just dont get special treatment which is what they want and what your want for your rural county.

And I suppose the Consituational amendment passed by Prop 8 should have stood because all the supporters of gay rights got to vote?

[San Lumen]

the state government based in Sacramento is sovereign over the state. These counties have a voice in government they just dont get special treatment which is what they want and what your want for your rural county.

And I suppose the Consituational amendment passed by Prop 8 should have stood because all the supporters of gay rights got to vote?

It passed in a free and fair election and that proposition was overturned by the court system.

[Telconi]

And I suppose the Consituational amendment passed by Prop 8 should have stood because all the supporters of gay rights got to vote?

It passed in a free and fair election and that proposition was overturned by the court system.

Yeah, I was there... Want to answer the question now?

[Greater Kossackia]

And I suppose the Consituational amendment passed by Prop 8 should have stood because all the supporters of gay rights got to vote?

It passed in a free and fair election and that proposition was overturned by the court system.

More specifically, it was overturned because it conflicted with the U.S. Constitution, which takes precedence over all state constitutions and federal, state, and local laws.

[San Lumen]

It passed in a free and fair election and that proposition was overturned by the court system.

More specifically, it was overturned because it conflicted with the U.S. Constitution, which takes precedence over all state constitutions and federal, state, and local laws.

This is your answer Telconi

[Telconi]

It passed in a free and fair election and that proposition was overturned by the court system.

More specifically, it was overturned because it conflicted with the U.S. Constitution, which takes precedence over all state constitutions and federal, state, and local laws.

I was still there...

[Telconi]

More specifically, it was overturned because it conflicted with the U.S. Constitution, which takes precedence over all state constitutions and federal, state, and local laws.

This is your answer Telconi

A copied non answer... okay, don't think we're getting anywhere.

[Conserative Morality]

This is your answer Telconi

A copied non answer... okay, don't think we're getting anywhere.

"Democracy means majority rules."

"Okay, what about Prop 8?"

"It passed, it was just overruled by a higher governmental authority deriving its legitimacy from the voice of an even larger majority of American citizens."

"Lol what a non-answer"

???

[Greater Kossackia]

More specifically, it was overturned because it conflicted with the U.S. Constitution, which takes precedence over all state constitutions and federal, state, and local laws.

I was still there...

I'm not sure what your issue is then. The amendment was passed and enacted in accordance with California state constitutional law, but because the amendment was found to be inconsistent with the United States Constitution it was struck down. Which is exactly how it should work.

[Telconi]

A copied non answer... okay, don't think we're getting anywhere.

"Democracy means majority rules."

"Okay, what about Prop 8?"

"It passed, it was just overruled by a higher governmental authority deriving its legitimacy from the voice of an even larger majority of American citizens."

"Lol what a non-answer"

???

It's almost like an explanation of what happened isn't an answer to the question I posed... weird how that works...

[Uxupox]

If the majority of the people living in those areas want in then they should have it, however they are but just a very vocal minority.