- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Ramifications of California Splitting Into 3 States?
Posted on 6/13/18 at 12:50 pm to AUCE05
Posted on 6/13/18 at 12:50 pm to AUCE05
quote:
It won't happen. Even if 100% of the voting Californians approve the split, the feds have the final say. The last tine it happened was Virginia splitting, and that took a civil war.
Pretty sure Malcolm Gladwell did a podcast on this recently that was focused around some internal Texas strife. I didn't listen too closely and tuned a bit of it out, but it somehow has to do with ambiguities in the constitution's grammar. Supposedly it could be interpreted that Federal consent is only required to add a new state, but that it's not required to split existing states. Supposedly that could be interpreted to be determinable at the state level.
Do I believe that would ever hold-up in court? God no, but it would be interesting to see how things would shake up if either Texas or California split (in some crazy hypothetical realty).
3
Posted on 6/13/18 at 1:17 pm to FootballNostradamus
quote:
Supposedly it could be interpreted that Federal consent is only required to add a new state, but that it's not required to split existing states. Supposedly that could be interpreted to be determinable at the state level.
I"m not trying to be a dick here as I realize you are just relaying relaying an argument Gladwell made and not endorsing it, but that's the silliest goddamn argument I've heard all week and would result in the shortest SCOTUS opinion in the history of the Court.
Something like:
Question Presented: is splitting a State in two the same as adding a State?
Held: Yes it is.
Posted on 6/13/18 at 2:40 pm to FootballNostradamus
quote:
Supposedly it could be interpreted that Federal consent is only required to add a new state, but that it's not required to split existing states.
Article IV of the Constitution addresses this specifically.
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.
Posted on 6/13/18 at 2:47 pm to FootballNostradamus
quote:
Supposedly it could be interpreted that Federal consent is only required to add a new state, but that it's not required to split existing states. Supposedly that could be interpreted to be determinable at the state level.
Not a lawyer but I don't see how it could be interpreted that you wouldn't need Congressional approval. It seems the last six words make it pretty clear.
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1-
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.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News